738 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 11,1S7I. 
CtfrmjKmtocc. 
. *** No notice can be ta/cen 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. 
The Proposed Poison Regulations. 
Sir, After tlic very voluminous correspondence that has 
for some time filled the columns of the Journal, from writers 
of every degree of ability and every shade of opinion, I feel it 
is scarcely possible to bring forward any new idea or any 
fresh argument on the subject. But as there appears a de¬ 
sire on the part of the Council to learn the general sentiment 
of the members of the trade, I venture, at the risk of only 
telling an oft-told tale and repeating what has already been 
said better by others. 
After reading nearly all that has appeared, and reviewing 
the origin and progress of this vexed question, I confess to 
feeling some sympathy for the Council, under the very trying 
circumstances in which they have been placed, and the an¬ 
noyance they have endured; still this is only matter for sym¬ 
pathy, but the subject is one involving a great public interest, 
and ought not, therefore, to be disposed of on sentimental 
grounds. 
After all that has been stated on both sides, including 
"secret treaties” and “tacit understandings,” the question 
resolves itself into one of expediency, and the proposition 
certainly involves in it police interference prospectively, and 
pains and penalties for any infringement. 
It has been said the regulations are necessary, because a 
large number of those in business are not properly educated 
men; by this, I suppose, is meant not systematically educated, 
which may be admitted; and I would say further that to these 
the regulations would . be a stumbling-block and a rock of 
offence, making confusion worse confounded. On the other 
hand, to the properly-trained and systematically-educated 
man, they are quite unnecessary. His own knowledge and 
understanding will supply him with regulations that will 
meet his own requirements far better. Now, the first of these 
two classes is fast passing away,—a few years and they will 
be amongst the things that have passed into oblivion. 
Is it, therefore, wise or expedient to put upon us a yoke 
that will gall us in perpetuity, in order to remedy an evil 
that is only transitory, and will soon come to an end ? Phar¬ 
macy in England has not yet attained to the dignity of a pro¬ 
fession nor the position of an exact science, and until the old 
leaven has. exhausted itself, it will not. A n honourable career, 
I believe, is open to it, but the time has not yet arrived, and 
it will never do to stifle the new-born life out of it by oppres¬ 
sive legislation. r 
As regulations recommended for adoption by the Society, 
there is little doubt but they would be followed by all respectable 
men, and those who are obstinate enough to refuse, must be 
left to their own fate. There is, perhaps, one exception will 
be taken to this, and that is the dispensing clause. 
Bradford, March 7th, 1871. F. M. Rimmington. 
Sir,—In the last issue of our Journal you make the rerna: 
(p. 699) “whatever may be the proper view to take as to t] 
proposed regulations, we cannot agree with the opinion tk 
they should not be adopted because medical men negle 
them. That argument, at least, appears to be fallacious.” 
aou, Sir, as representing the majority of the Counc 
surely Jo not understand the position of chemists in Sco 
land. Y\ e do not wish to meddle with medical men as sue 
but when they become druggists by keeping open shop, th< 
we claim to have them under regulations as well as the oth 
fhe ^ ofthe pTb™’ “ SUCh MgUkti0M “> re< i uired f 
If you or any of the Council will visit our city—a citv 
no mean importance—I will show you the actual fact th 
medical men do become druggists. What do you call a pe 
son with the following over his door :__ ^ 
“ Chemist and Druggist,” Apothecary Hall, 
Dr. A. B., Surgeon ? 01 Hr. C. D., Surgeon ? 
Such is the rule here, not the exception. Their shops for 
style and appearance, will bear comparison with any in the 
kingdom. J 
There is no fallacy in such hard facts, and I maintain that 
when a medical man keeps an open shop and retails Hol¬ 
loway’s pills and every other quack medicine, he is to all 
intents and purposes a druggist. Scotland has only one re¬ 
presentative at the Council Board; I think now he should be 
supported by another from Glasgow', that we, north of the 
Tweed, may not be misunderstood. 
If the article reproduced from the British Medical Journal 
wdtkout a word of comment against it, is intended to make 
us comply with the regulations, never was a greater mistake 
made.. It will only arouse within us a firmer determination 
to reject the regulations, regardless of the threat that “an 
obstinate resistance to the demands of the Privy Council 
must lead to the recasting of the Pharmaceutical monopoly.” 
Let the Privy Council first prove that poison regulations 
are required for the safety of the public, and next let the 
British Medical Journal prove that “w r e wish to be pro¬ 
tected, and are willing to leave the door as widely open as 
ever to all the calamities which spring from carelessness or 
ignorance of persons dealing with medicines,” and “ are re¬ 
gardless of the sacrifice of life.” 
If, Sir, we had a monopoly of our business and there were 
no open surgeries, I wonder how many lives would be sacri¬ 
ficed by our carelessness in dispensing; the cases wdiich have 
occurred lately certainly prove less lives would be lost. 
A member of a late ministry once said the chemists in 
Scotland were the most intelligent class in the community, 
and he would oppose their exemption from juries on that- 
ground. If such an opinion is held concerning us, surely we 
shall be heard in any future legislation concerning our and 
the public interests. Thomas Davison. 
Glasgow, ls£ March, 1871. 
Sir,—I fully agree with the remarks in the letter of this day’s 
Journal written by Mr. Clement Pierson, of Leeds, relative to 
the “Poison Regulations;” they are most pertinent to the 
question at issue. If the status the passing of the New Phar¬ 
macy Act has given us will not secure that due and proper pre¬ 
caution so indispensably requisite for the public safety, sure I 
am that nothing Government can put upon us in the way of 
coercion will effect that end. 
J. Barker. 
37, Market Mill, Sudbury, March 4>th, 1871. 
Sir,—“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and 
if we members persist in dividing ourselves into two camps, 
how is our Society to prosper, and in what light shall we- 
appear in the eyes of the Privy Council ? 
Let us first agree among ourselves as to the best methods; 
of conducting our own affairs, and then we shall command 
the respect of Government and be trusted with the responsi¬ 
bility of making any regulations where the public well-being 
is concerned. 
All well-wishers of the Pharmaceutical Society must regret 
the wide controversy on the proposed “poison regulations,” and 
I have looked in vain, hoping for some abler pen than mine ta 
propose some middle course in which the extremes mighf shake- 
hands and unitedly appear in a strong position before the Go¬ 
vernment, -who will certainly take action in this matter if we 
do not, or succeed in showing good cause to the contrary. 
The whole case seems to resolve itself into the fact, that, at 
the time the Pharmacy Bill of 1868 was planned, certain re¬ 
gulations were deemed necessary for the safety of the public 
in the matter of storing and retailing poisons, and the said 
regulations were very much left to the arrangement of the; 
Council of the Pharmaceutical Society. 
Nearly three years having elapsed, the Privy Council look 
for a fulfilment of the then implied conditions from the Coun¬ 
cil of our Society. 
. Now the reply of the Council appears to me to be palpable-, 
viz.:— 
The wise and careful provisions of the Pharmacy Act of 
1868, as a whole, for the protection of the public and further 
regulation of the dispensing of poisons in question, have worked 
so efficiently and been so faithfully observed by the Phar¬ 
maceutical body, that the necessity for any more stringent 
imposition of any particular clause of that Act than is now 
generally observed, would be superfluous, for each individual 
member has voluntarily undertaken, and has earned out such- 
precautions and regulations as his own particular case seemed 
especially to demand ; so that now, to introduce farther altera¬ 
tion would destroy, in many cases, great aids to security which 
