THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 18,1871 
5S 
tends that the pharmaceutical body will be cleansed, raised 
or “educated” by such proposed enactments; and it seems to 
me that the Council propose to cast a stigma upon them¬ 
selves and upon those whom they represent, which at present 
only here and there an isolated individual besides is found 
rabid enough to do. 
BrecJcfield Hoad North, Liverpool, 
March 1 Ith, 1871. 
Thomas Lowe. 
Sir,—As a member and well-wisher of the Pharmaceutical 
Society, I cannot help sympathizing with, and feeling every 
confidence in, the Council in their desire to bring in the pro¬ 
posed Bill; but at the same time it appears to me, since 
examinations are compulsory, and education has ever been 
recognized as a public safeguard against cases of poisoning, 
the proposed compulsory regulations are quite unnecessary, 
and would rather impress the public mind with doubt as to 
our capability of managing our businesses, and lead them to 
ignore the fact of educational status, instead of increasing 
their confidence that every member of the trade would make 
such precautionary arrangements as his class of business, 
shop and warehouse accommodation and staff would suggest. 
It is not so much to the “ regulations” themselves that I 
object, as to the fact of making them compulsory,—from what 
I can learn, those or similar arrangements being at present 
adopted in almost every dispensing establishment. 
Further, these “regulations” would be incomplete unless 
they applied to all other dispensaries besides those of chemists, 
such as surgeons’, apothecaries’, hospitals’, and infirmaries’, 
which need reform much more than our own. 
With regard to the regulations themselves. To the first 
clause I cannot raise the slightest objection, as it is just what 
is at present almost universally adopted. To the second 
clause my objection is the classification of “poisons,” as some 
persons would include henbane, digitalis, colchicum, etc., 
under this head, while others would not; if the list of 
“poisons” contained in the former Act is to include all 
that are to come under the new one, such outside drugs 
and preparations must be considered as non-poisonous, 
and consequently require no precautions as to storage and 
dispensing. I cannot see why “white” and “red precipi¬ 
tate,” “ oil of vitriol,” “spirit of salts,” “sugar of lead,” and 
many other (I will call them) commercial articles, as also 
many essential oils, which have caused more accidents than 
those which come under the list, should be excluded. With 
regard to (B) of clause 2, using a bottle or vessel such as de¬ 
scribed would make the dispenser a mere machine; and then 
would arise the difficulty of distinguishing between various 
poisons, corrosive sublimate being distinguished while calomel 
would not,—thus depending on the sense of touch, rather 
than that of sight. This plan alone would, I believe, cause 
more errors than already occur. (C) of clause 2 greatly 
meets the requirements, provided all poisons (I mean such as 
are not in the last Act) were so included, which would be a 
matter of some difficulty, considering their number. Clause 3 
is such as might be adopted with much advantage and secu¬ 
rity. On the whole I consider the already existing arrange¬ 
ments most satisfactory, and that chemists themselves are 
the best persons to regulate the keeping and dispensing poi¬ 
sons according to their own judgment, and as best suited to 
their individual requirements. 
Finding that it has been the desire of the Council to ascer¬ 
tain each member’s individual opinion is my apology for 
troubling you on this occasion. 
placed before Mr. Simon a protest numerously signed by the 
trade against any further pharmaceutical legislation, espe¬ 
cially of a restrictive character; and also a statement, that 
any interference with the individual freedom and responsibi¬ 
lity of the chemist and druggist would be encountered with 
the unanimous opposition of the trade. It is more than pro¬ 
bable that the question would then have dropped, and with 
it would also have died the no little ill-feeling that lias arisen. 
In the statement of reasons issued by the Council is men¬ 
tioned “ the great privileges accorded to, and confidence 
reposed in the Pharmaceutical Society; to which, on the 
urgent representation of the Council, that the Society itself 
was the only judge of what would be practicable and adapted 
to the exigencies of trade in all parts of the kingdom,” etc. 
Are we to deduce from the above that the Council desire that 
the majority of the 2000 members of the Pharmaceutical 
Society who elected them should arrogate to themselves so 
immense a superiority over their 10,000 brethren who have 
been contemptuously called “outsiders”? If so, the lan¬ 
guage is certainly worthy of the notorious Mr. Chollop, who, 
speaking of his brother Yankees, said, “We are the intellect 
and virtue of the airth, the cream of human natur’, and the 
flower of moral force.” 
Does it not occur to the Council that strength has been 
given them, and consolidation to the whole of the trade, by 
the ready adhesion of these “outsiders” to the government 
of a Council which they do not elect ? Has it never occurred 
to the Council that in event of any further parliamentary 
pharmacy the 10,000 “outsiders” may have accorded to them 
a voice in the pharmaceutical franchise ? In these days of 
reform, Parliament would scarcely refuse so reasonable a 
request, and the status of the select few who now have the 
management might be somewhat altered. 
After carefully considering the transactions of the Council 
upon this question, my opinion is that, notwithstanding their 
specious statement of reasons, they could have shelved the 
subject had they wished to do so. The eloquence of our Pre¬ 
sident, which could dissuade even the sturdy Mr. Lowe from 
pressing his objectionable amendments, might, combined with 
the support of the trade, have convinced Mr. Simon that the 
Pharmacy Act had provided all that was necessary for the 
public safety. 
The energetic proprietors of a popular contemporary have 
now also taken the question in hand. Let us hope that their 
efforts, and those of the Council, will not cause us to say, in 
the language of the lamented Artemus, “We are governed 
too much.” 
A Country Pharmaceutical Chemist. 
41, High Street, Exeter, 
March 13 tli, 1871. 
JonN H. Lake. 
Sir,—In the Journal 
nion that there was 
no 
of the 11th ult. 
necessity for 
, I expressed my opi- 
restrictive legislation 
With your permission, I will 
upon the matter of poisons 
make a few other remarks. 
The errors of judgment made by the Council are now be¬ 
ginning to bear fruit, more particularly that very foolish one 
whereby they refused to take the sense of the trade through¬ 
out the country upon this subject. Upon a question of this 
importance, whereby the liberty of the trade is so much 
threatened, it must have occurred to the Council that a 
strong current of opinion would manifest itself in opposition 
to the scheme they suggested. The Council 
might 
have 
Sir,—After so recently troubling you with my views upon, 
the “poison regulations,” I should not again have thrust 
myself into the arena of conflict, had it not been for the ap¬ 
pearance of Mr. D. W. John’s letter in your last impression. 
My object on the present occasion, is to endeavour to draw 
the earnest attention of all parties to that letter; and at the 
same time to say that I can, from personal experience and 
ample information, fully endorse every statement made therein 
as to the existing condition of things in not a few establish¬ 
ments, and I am fully persuaded the picture he has drawn is 
not too highly coloured. 
I also agree with him as to the educational bearing. Edu¬ 
cation will not always make a man careful, nor will it per se 
prevent misadventure. 
In two or three of the most distressing cases of accidental 
poisoning which have occurred within my memory, no at-^ 
tempt was made to explain the disasters by the want of 
proper educational acquirements, for the contrary was well 
known to be the truth of the case. 
Then again, as Mr. John truly observes, in the majority of 
businesses it is absolutely necessary that there shall be ap¬ 
prentices and young assistants employed, and it seems to me 
that the “ poison regulations” may be a safeguard. That they 
can be “ a delusion and a snare,” or the means of “ making 
confusion worse confounded,” is I believe perfectly absurd to 
imagine. 
Quoting from Mr. John’s letter, I say, “The fact that fre¬ 
quent recommendations and fearfully narrow escapes have 
failed to convince many of the necessity of adopting any pre¬ 
cautions is, I think, sufficient to prove that nothing short of 
stern compulsion will secure the general adoption of any rules 
that may be proposed.” 
And for the same reasons it appears to me quite a faiC3 to- 
