766 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 25, 1871. 
of such an enactment, because, when the vast amount 
of dispensing done was taken into consideration, the ratio 
of accidents was infinitesimal. He thought, further, that 
it would he unconstitutional and essentially tyrannical 
for the few individuals constituting the Annual Meeting 
of the Society to coerce and injure, as virtually they 
would have the power to do, the whole trade; that the 
policy of compulsion was unworthy of the Society, after 
the recent legislation on the subject of poisons and 
educational tests, such a policy being retrograde, tacitly 
discrediting education, and provocative of ill-feeling, 
opposition and perhaps schism, and would, if persisted 
in, result in imperfect and disappointing results. Looking 
ahead,'"he must warn them of what they might fairly infer 
from this attempt in the shape of consequences,—inspec¬ 
tion with all its repugnance,—and after that, perhaps, 
under pressure from the medical officer of the Privy 
Council, curtailment of other rights. 
The absurd exemption from the coercive operation of 
the proposed “regulations” of doctors’ shops and dis¬ 
pensaries was then referred to, and the confusion likely 
so to arise was pointed out. The formation of a Defence 
Association he thought most opportune, and deserv¬ 
ing of general support, as well as the issue of non¬ 
officialvoting-papers to the whole trade from the Chemist 
and Druggist office, by which he hoped all would express 
their opinion. He begged to move the following resolu¬ 
tion :— 
“ This meeting, having fully taken into consideration 
the proposed compulsory regulations for the keeping and 
dispensing of “poisons,” strongly protests against such 
regulations being passed at the Annual Meeting of the 
Pharmaceutical Society to be held in May next, and 
further hopes that the members present at the said 
Annual Meeting will unanimously reject the same.” 
Mr. Shaw, in seconding the resolution, observed that 
its construction implied that the meeting had well consi¬ 
dered the proposed regulations, otherwise he should have 
been tempted to dispense with any further argument 
pro or con., seeing that the subject had already been de¬ 
bated almost to the death during the past year. He 
then briefly alluded to the Pharmacy Bills introduced 
into Parliament during the last five or six years, calling 
special attention to the fact of the absence of any stated 
or implied interference with chemists and druggists in 
the keeping and dispensing of poisons in the drafts of 
the Bills submitted to the country in 1867 and 1868, and 
published in the Pharmaceutical Journal in May, 
1867, and in the March and June numbers, 1868. He 
strongly insisted that there was no evidence before the 
country at the present time proving the necessity for 
legal enforcement of such regulations, and pointed out the 
circumstances attending the introduction of the Arsenic 
Act, the Adulteration of Food and Drink Act, the Pe¬ 
troleum and Nitro-glycerine Acts, in justification of their 
enactment. Education and a guaranteed competency by 
means of an examination, combined with personal re¬ 
sponsibility, had always been considered the most effec¬ 
tive protection against accidents by poisoning; and he 
considered that such compulsory regulations in the pre¬ 
sent and prospectively more improved state of education 
amongst chemists and druggists, were totally uncalled 
^ or '. nex t alluded to the fact that such proposed 
legislation, applying only to chemists and druggists, was 
partial, invidious and must prove mischievous by en¬ 
tirely exempting surgeons, apothecaries and veterinary 
surgeons from its operation, whether occupying private 
surgeries or keeping open retail shops, as was done in 
many parts of the country, especially in Glasgow. The 
public dispensaries were also to be exempted from the 
observance of the regulations, notwithstanding that up¬ 
wards of 200,000 packages and bottles of medicine were 
sent out by the Liverpool dispensaries alone, to the 
lowest class of the population, during the past year. It 
had been said that the adoption of the regulations would 
throw the whole of the dispensing into the hands of 
chemists. He did not believe that, but thought that, if 
the surgeons and others were included, it would more 
probably have that effect. One of the proposed regula¬ 
tions was intended to “ educate ” the public by means of 
the sense of touch, as to when a bottle contained poison 
and when it did not; and he thought that confusion and 
danger were sure to be the consequence, especially bear¬ 
ing in mind the exemptions already alluded to. Some of 
the words used in the clauses of the proposed regula¬ 
tions were very ambiguous and indefinite, a circumstance 
much to be deprecated in any Act of Parliament, more 
especially where consequences of the most serious cha¬ 
racter were involved. For instance, the word “poison,” 
of course, embraced all the substances named or implied 
in Schedule (A), as arsenic, belladonna, strychnia, pare¬ 
goric and ferrocyanide of potassium, though the latter, 
according to Fownes, “has no poisonous properties.” 
But the term “ poison,” in the keeping and dispensing 
of poisons, could not possibly be restricted to the articles 
embraced in Schedule (A). The term “ ordinary arti¬ 
cles” was intended to represent such articles as acetic, 
citric and tartaric acids, cream of tartar, sugar of milk, 
magnesia, subchloride of mercury, etc. etc.; but it must 
not be forgotten that it also included carbolic acid, the 
corrosive acids, sugar of lead, barytic and cupreous salts, 
biniodide. of mercury,—some of these being most viru¬ 
lent poisons, but not legally requiring any particular re¬ 
gulations as to keeping and dispensing them. The 
word “ dangerous” he looked upon as indefinite and ob¬ 
jectionable, from the fact that the Pharmacy Act did not 
comprehend and define what articles were dangerous, 
and the Council, with ingenious reticence, did not con¬ 
descend to point them out. Allusion was then made to 
the late Jacob Bell, Esq., who commanded the highest 
respect for his sound business sense, and whose opinion 
on all matters relating to pharmacy was highly valued. 
In the year 1857 Mr. Bell said, “ The provisions regard¬ 
ing the sale of medicines in square bottles of a particular 
coloured glass, with the word 1 poison ’ moulded on them, 
was one of those visionary ideas it was curious to see in 
print; and he had published the Bill entire ” (Sale of 
Poisons, etc., Bill of that year) “in last month’s Journal, 
as it would be a literary curiosity to be referred to in 
future.” Also, “that no Act of Parliament could make 
them more careful than they were obliged to be for 
their own reputation.” Mr. Shaw then remarked there 
was one member of the Council who at present enjoyed 
a prominent and deservedly popular position in the So¬ 
ciety,—he alluded to Mr. Ince ; and that gentleman had 
just communicated his views on this vexed question, and 
he would beg to read a short letter written to the editor, 
and inserted in the Chemist and Druggist , published the 
day before. 
Mr. Abraham at this point rose and objected to Mr. 
Shaw reading Mr. Ince’s letter, without he also read 
Mr. Groves’ on the other side of the question. 
Mr. Shaw said he had not the least objection to Mr. 
Abraham reading Mr. Groves’ letter, if he thought it 
desirable to do so; but he would content himself by 
reading that from Mr. Ince. 
Suggestions were then made that the pith of Mr. 
Ince’s letter might be given, to which Mr. Shaw replied 
that the letter was pithy from beginning to end, and 
that, if he gave the pith, he must give the whole; how¬ 
ever, as the time was limited, he contented himself with 
reading the latter portion of it, and concluded by second¬ 
ing the resolution. 
Mr. Abraham said that he agreed with many of the 
statements of the preceding speakers, and he had in¬ 
tended to call attention to the fact that the proposition for 
these regulations was not to he found in any Bill at the 
time, of its introduction by the Council of the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society. He himself had no confidence in such pro¬ 
visions in a compulsory sense, and he was not aware that 
any other member of the Council had. The provisions of 
the Act were introduced during the passage of the Bill 
