March 11, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
739 
at present exist, without increasing such security as is aimed 
at in a general way. 
The Council of the Pharmaceutical Society would, there¬ 
fore, submit to the Honourable Privy Council, with the una¬ 
nimous opinion of the whole Pharmaceutical body in general 
meeting assembled, that the regulations, now in general use, 
are efficient, and any further regulations for the proposed 
purpose would not have any tendency to promote the welfare 
of her Majesty’s subjects. 
The proof of this position is the fact, that accidents to the 
public arising from the improper storing and retailing of 
poisons by Pharmaceutical Chemists and Registered Chemists 
and Druggists, are now almost unknown, and that the danger 
is therefore already reduced to the lowest point attainable by 
any regulations. 
Hampstead, March 7th, 1871. Walter Biggs. 
Sir,—Education is, we are told by those opposed to this 
proposal, the one safeguard against poison accidents, apparently 
forgetting that a careless man, although he may have received 
the best of educations, would remain careless. We do not 
expect universal education to make policemen magistrates, 
and judges useless members of society. Daily experience, 
unfortunately, shows that the worst criminals are too fre¬ 
quently well educated; failure in one case is good reason for 
doubt in another. 
But are we, as a body, educated ? The Pharmacy Act, it 
is true, will in future compel all who enter business on their 
own account to pa; s two examinations, but there are many 
engaged in pharma< y who will never become the owners of 
a business; consequently, we have no guarantee for their 
intelligence. Out of London I only know one establishment 
in which no apprentices are employed; in the majority there 
are no assistants, and in these, as a rule, the principal is 
seldom present, consequently, all the work is done by the ap¬ 
prentices, and I know many of them when their indentures 
or agreements are signed are quite ignorant of Latin. I 
know pharmaceutical chemists who receive as apprentices lads 
whose knowledge of English consists of not more than six 
words. Surely it cannot be said that in those cases education 
is a sufficient precaution. The Act has nothing in it to pre¬ 
vent a continuance of this state of things. 
When I find your correspondents, one after another and 
week after week, asserting that every shop has now some re¬ 
gulation or another in use, I begin to doubt my own eyes and 
memory. I have, during my little experience of the trade, been 
engaged in some six or seven different situations, including a 
surgery and a workhouse infirmary, but have never known 
regulations or precautions whatever. I know where drawers 
were labelled in alphabetical order,—acacia, alumen, arsenic, 
etc., next one another in a row; bottles were arranged so that 
one shelf should hold white powders, another dark ones, thus 
arsenic and calcined magnesia (in one case the heavy), can- 
tharides andpowderedcubebs, etc., were next-door neighours, 
liquids in the same order; these arrangements remain the 
same to-day. There are several on the Register who are well 
known to consider the pharmacy branch of their trade as of 
far less importance than the wine, spirit, beer and porter 
branch, and in their shops everything is made to give place to 
the drinkables, the young men having to leave bottles of mix¬ 
tures partly prepared, to serve glasses of grog, etc. 
My experience (for I write what I know to be true) thus 
tells me that regulations for the keeping of poisons are ne¬ 
cessary, because of the want of education and the general 
neglect of any precautions. 
The fact that frequent recommendations and fearfully 
narrow escapes have failed to convince many of the necessity 
of adopting any precautions is, I think, sufficient to prove 
that nothing short of stern compulsion will secure the general 
adoption of any rules that may be proposed. 
Many object to the proposed regulations because they 
would include all the articles named in Schedule “A.” Sec¬ 
tion 1 of Act declares the word “ poison ” to mean the whole 
of those articles. Any regulations which may be proposed 
for the “keeping of poisons,” must, therefore (unless we 
have a new Act), apply to the whole list. 
I hope the Council will persevere and succeed. 
March 7th, 1871. D. W. John. 
1 Sir,—I am one of those ■who think that compulsory regu¬ 
lations as to the safe keeping of poisons are quite unne¬ 
cessary. Many abler pens than mine have written on that 
point, therefore I will say nothing. But I wish to ask a 
question or two relative to the third clause in the proposed 
regulations, which says, “All liniments, embrocations and 
lotions containing poison, shall be sent out in bottles readily 
distinguishable by touch from ordinary medicine bottles.” 
M ill a particular-shaped bottle be required, or can a piece 
of sand-paper be affixed to any ordinary bottle? 
. -J- s the rule to apply to the sale of laudanum, and such ar¬ 
ticles, or only to the dispensing of prescriptions ? 
If it only applies to dispensing, I think it is quite unneces- 
sary, for as far as my experience goes,—and I have seen a 
good deal ot dispensing,—it is already carried out in dispens¬ 
ing establishments, medicines for external and internal use 
being put in different shaped bottles. If it is intended to 
a PPU to the sale of such articles as laudanum, I venture to 
say it will be impossible to carry it out in many shops. In 
the neighbourhood in which I live the sale of laudanum and 
opium is of hourly occurrence, and we could not give a poison 
bottle when a customer came for a pennyworth or a half¬ 
pennyworth of it; and I am certain, in the majority of in¬ 
stances, the customer would not buy one. 
Even supposing all the poisons mentioned in the schedule 
were sent out in poison-bottles, people could not be prevented 
using the bottles for other purposes when they had got them. 
Many people would take a fancy to the bottles, and make use 
of them for gin, vinegar, hair o'il, etc., and would use them in 
spite of any Act of Parliament, even if you could get Parlia¬ 
ment to pass such an Act, which is very improbable, and 
then what security would there be in “ poison ” bottles ? 
If laudanum lias to be sent out in poison bottles, how is 
opium to be sent out ? The sale of it is quite common in 
many districts, and it is usually sold in paper or pill-boxes; 
and it would be absurd to place such restrictions on lauda¬ 
num and leave opium alone. Perhaps a particular shaped 
box would be required, or one covered with sand-paper. 
Again, what is the use of applying such regulations to the 
poisons in the schedule when oil of vitriol, spirit of salt, aqua¬ 
fortis and a host of other dangerous things, can be sold by 
any person, in any quantity, without any restriction what¬ 
ever ? 
Perhaps some supporter of the regulations will answer the 
above questions. Associate in Business. 
Sir,—I think, before voting for or against the Poison Bill, 
we ought to know what is a poison. What is more absurd 
than to tell the public that camphorated chloroform, parego¬ 
ric, syrup of poppies, cough lozenges, morphia lozenges, etc., 
are poisons according to the Pharmacy Act ? The line must 
be re-drawn, and it must include all trades and professions, 
whether wholesale or retail. 
When the word poison has been decided or clearly defined, 
then the feeling of the trade ought to be taken before the 
Society does anything in the matter. 
What does the Society tell the public? 
“That all chemists shall be examined, to show that they 
are educated and qualified to dispense medicines, etc., and 
that they are the only persons to sell poisons (under certain 
restrictions). They shall label the said poisons distinctly. 
The said label shall have the name and address of the seller 
on it.” In the next place, if the Society does not protect 
the chemists in their legitimate business, why take then' fees 
and yearly subscriptions ? It is only fair that the chemists 
should have something in return for their money. 
What chemist, with regard to his own safety, does not 
keep all virulent poisons away from other drugs, and have 
them distinctly labelled, not only while in stock, but when 
sent out, either as a prescription or recipe, and use blue 
bottles for lotions and poisonous applications ? 
If chemists are qualified by their examination, why impose 
these restrictions, which are not imposed on the grocer, oil¬ 
man or drysalter, who sell more poisons than all the chemists 
in London ? 
Cases of accidental poisoning by chemists are very rare, in 
fact, scarcely known, considering the number of prescriptions 
they dispense. As a rule poisoning is attempted, or occurs 
through the poison having been sold by mistake by those who 
are not able to distinguish arsenic from carbonate of soda, 
much less give an antidote in case of emergency. 
Lastly, as there is no law to compel a pharmaceutical che¬ 
mist or chemist and druggist to be members of the Society, I 
hear that several of my friends intend to discontinue their sub- 
I scriptions unless the Society looks better after their interests 
