698 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February 25, 1871 
to those wim differ from them, it might be regarded simply 
as an instance of very L<v<3 taste; but to take such action in 
the face of the decision of a general meeting of the members 
of the Society (the proprietors of the Journal), is an exhibi¬ 
tion of tyranny in the use of temporary power, that needs a 
worse name than discourtesy. 
I possibly feel this the more strongly as I had the misfor¬ 
tune to belong to that minority of the Council who, holding 
with the late Jacob Bell that “ the only practicable safeguard 
to the public is the proper qualification of all persons who 
administer or deal in poisonous substances ,” have objected to 
the imposition of regulations the inconvenience of which to 
the trade as a compulsory enactment their vei’y authors 
acknowledge, whilst not even their authors have ventured to 
predict that any real advantage to the public would follow 
their adoption. Would it not have been more dignified if the 
leading articles, instead of reproducing, without contradiction 
or explanation, paragraphs from other periodicals either false 
in fact or false in the impression they are intended to convey 
to the public mind, had been devoted to upholding the posi¬ 
tion of the Society and vindicating its honour? But the 
honour of the body is sacrificed, because it suits the purpose 
of a portion of the Council that the members should be 
frightened. In Mr. Bell’s days chemists looked to the 
“ Journal” for their defence against all outside enemies, and 
they were never disappointed. It is a painful reflection that 
now they are compelled to band themselves into associations 
for defence, not so much against the outside public as against 
the acts of their own Council. 
There were many methods open to the Council of explain¬ 
ing its attitude of antagonism to the ascertained opinon of 
its constituents, if explanation had been the object sought. 
Obviously, the right method would have been to have invited 
the presence of reporters at the Council meetings when these 
matters were discussed, but it seems that that is much too 
liberal a measure for the present body. Still there were many 
others, such as, for instance, the circular which has beenrecently 
issued to the members. This particular document may not 
be very effective—it would be odd indeed if three foolscap 
pages of weak excuses did not carry their own condemna¬ 
tion, yet it has an interesting phase in the light it sheds on 
the authorship of at least one of the anonymous letters that 
have appeared in the Journal—but its issue is no outrage 
on the independence of the periodical which represents, or 
ought to represent, the Society at large. 
Will you allow me to add a few words touching the pro¬ 
posed regulations ? One of your correspondents ridicules the 
notion of police, or indeed of any inspection of pharmacies, 
under the impression apparently that “ inspection ” is a bug¬ 
bear invented by objectors, and that it is a step which has never 
been entertained by the official mind. Does he forget that Lord 
Derby’s Bill, which passed the House of Lords, provided for 
the appointment of examining inspectors; and that in Mr. 
Walpole’s Bill, also a Government measure, the principle of 
police inspection was a prominent feature ? Can anybody 
suppose the chance of such interference to be less now that 
we are unfortunately under the guardianship of the Privy 
Council than when, as heretofore, directly responsible to the 
Government in the person of the Home Secretary ? If there 
be such an one, let him study the way the Privy Council (or 
their medical officer) used their newly-found powers when 
the Bye-laws and the Board of Examiners were matters under 
consideration. Surely it is humiliation enough that our 
Council were then compelled to rescind previous resolutions, 
and. to enact laws referring to the internal eaonomy of the 
Society which they did not approve, in order to save its whole 
machinery from being brought to a dead-lock by that body. 
If he. wishes to know something of the Privy Council and 
their ideas of inspection, he might further study with advan¬ 
tage their relation to the medical profession in the matter of the 
vaccinatum Acts; and if he desires to estimate the efficiency 
of their system as affecting public safety, he may find his data 
m the weekly mortality rates, or in a recent speech in the 
House of Commons by the IMember for "Westminster 
One \\ord more, and I have done, and that on a subject 
which forbodes ill in its present aspect, namely, the want of 
unity which seems to exist between “town" and “countrv” 
interests, arising chiefly from want of knowledge of the various 
conditions of business. This was very manifest at the last 
anniversary meeting, not so much perhaps in respect to the 
“poison” question as in some others that were then dis¬ 
cussed. Apart from principle, and the certainty of a system of 
inspection to follow, it can make little practical difference to 
the leading London chemist what regulations are made touch¬ 
ing storage. He need hardly keep half the substances known 
as poisons, and his stock can be renewed at a few minutes’ 
notice from his druggist or manufacturer; but it is a very 
different thing to men holding a similar position in small or 
middle-sized towns, and I am assured by some so situated 
that they find it almost impracticable to carry out faithfully 
even the regulations already in force under the Act. 
The imposition of an irrevocable code of restrictions, whilst 
the present difference of opinion exists as to their general 
practicability, would be an act of great injustice ; but let the 
Council of the Society recommend any well-considered scheme 
for voluntary adoption, and every chemist will give effect to 
it to the extent of his power. If this course were taken, no 
Parliament would sanction interference until it could be 
shown to be inefficient; and until then any compulsory legis¬ 
lation on the part of our own body is premature. Let town 
and country members pull together heartily, and we need fear 
little from outside. 
Newcastle-on-Tyne, Henby B. Beady. 
Feb. 20th, 1871. ___ 
Poison Regulations. 
Sir,—Much has been written in our Journal about the 
storing and dispensing of poisons; truly, it is a question of 
great importance to the trade, should the recommendations 
of Council be adopted, they will entail more and “ quite un¬ 
necessary” labour. Surely our labours are more than suffi¬ 
cient for our remuneration. I do think the law, as it at pre¬ 
sent stands, is quite sufficient to guard the public against any 
mistakes. I should like statistics to be produced for the last 
twenty years of poisoning and suicides, and I dare be bound 
that a very small percentage has arisen from the carelessness 
of chemists. 
As to the poison-closet, is it not likely to lead to more ac¬ 
cidents, especially where young men are kept; for instance, 
one is preparing a prescription containing three active poi¬ 
sons, belladonna, aconite and morphia; he goes to this closet 
and takes out those three bottles, compounds his prescription, 
and in nine cases out of ten leaves those poisonous bottles on 
the counter: thisjnight lead to very serious results; whereas, 
were those bottles on the shelves as at present (of course, 
marked “poison”), he would take one down, and replace it 
when done with. Indeed, my opinion is that all the arrange¬ 
ments for storing and dispensing medicines ought to be left 
entirely in the hands of chemists themselves. Surely, we as- 
a body of responsible agents will and do take every precau¬ 
tion to guard against mistakes. 
Chemists in every town ought to petition Parliament not 
to legislate in this most important matter, till the present law 
is found to be inadequate. Of course, it is of great importance 
to us to guard against mistakes, knowing the penalty, the for¬ 
feiture of our reputation, and perhaps the ruin of our families. 
This is more binding than closets or curious capped bottles, ctc- 
In conclusion, I hope the chemists in every town will be¬ 
stir themselves and ask their representatives in Parliament 
to oppose such an absurd system in drug shops as poison- 
closets. Why, the whole shop might be placed in it, their 
name being “legion.” 
Liverpool. _ Pestle. 
Sir,—It was my intention to have written some strictures 
upon the “statement” of reasons sent out by the Society, 
but some of your correspondents—prominentlv Mr. Reynolds 
—have so clearly demonstrated its inconsistency, and so ex¬ 
haustively treated the entire subject, that nothing remains 
for me but to enter my protest, along with my brother drug¬ 
gists, against any further restrictions being placed upon our 
trade, but more especially against the position taken by the 
Pharmaceutical Council in reference to this question. Had 
there been any real desire to “protect the public,” the pro¬ 
posed regulations must necessarily have extended to all 
places where poisons were stored, and consequently to the 
dispensaries of public institutions, as well as to the “'surge¬ 
ries” of all medical men. It is by no means difficult to 
prove that the public safety would have been much better 
conserved by a strict surveillance of the last-named establish¬ 
ments than by any trade restrictions placed upon chemists 
and druggists. It is a notorious fact that the dispensing of 
medical practitioners is often carried on in the most fla¬ 
grantly careless manner, and, so far as the poor dispenser is, 
