March 25, 1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
777 
as may then appear best. Owing principally to the wise 
action of the Pharmaceutical Society, the condition of things 
is vastly improved, and progress is by no means stayed. The 
Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, elected by the free 
votes of members, are fully qualified to regulate all matters 
connected with the business, without any interference by 
outsiders, medical or other. 
Education and self-interest are, in my opinion, quite suffi¬ 
cient to lead to the adoption of wise recommendations. But 
if laws are to be made, they should be absolute, and must 
affect all alike. It is worse than useless to make laws with 
no provision for carrying them out. I have been much sur¬ 
prised to see it stated that allusion to dispensaries, etc. is not 
appropriate here. I presume the safety of the public is the 
object to be secured. Assuredly, then, wherever poisons are 
kept and dispensed, the same laws should apply. I was sur¬ 
prised at the character of the remarks quoted from the British 
Medical Journal. There is such an imputation of unworthy 
motives, and use of threatening language, as is quite un¬ 
worthy of any honourable journal. 
I append my name, as I think it best that the names of 
your correspondents should be given. 
Pendleton, March 15th, 1871. Samuel Gill. 
Sir,—I believe that poison regulations are certain to be 
enforced upon us, and that the regulations proposed by the 
Pharmaceutical Council are such as should be adopted in 
every well-conducted pharmacy. I do not believe that the 
better education of chemists is the best security against mis¬ 
takes : note the strychnine poisoning case at Liverpool and 
the cyanide of potassium case at Dublin. There was no want 
of education in either establishment,—might there not have 
been better regulations ? 
I hope the Council will succeed in making their proposed 
regulations compulsory. I am satisfied chemists would feel 
more secure against the carelessness which it cannot be 
■doubted exists, more or less, where apprentices are employed. 
March IGth, 1871. Wm. Houghton. 
Sir,—I am induced to take up my pen, and reply to the 
letter signed W. H. P. in your last week’s Journal, inas¬ 
much as he makes a statement that might be challenged by 
hundreds of chemists in the provincial towns. He writes, 
“All will admit that at the present time more precautions 
are taken against accidents in the better-class’, dispensing 
businesses.” Now I for one do not admit it; and in looking 
over the record of disasters, i. e. mistakes which, have occurred 
during the last twenty years, the greater number will be found 
to have taken place in the so-called better dispensing businesses, 
and not in the unfortunate mixed country businesses, where 
we should be willing to accept Is. Gd. for the drops as recipe 
with which his letter is headed. If we all could find a better- 
class dispensing business, and get 2s. Gd. for Jiij of tr. gent, 
co., we might then try our hand at country legislation, and 
suggest a plan for ending the great poison-storing question, 
especially if a cupboard three feet square would contain all 
the poisons we required in stock. It is simply nonsense to 
talk about consigning poisonous acids and alkaloids to a cup¬ 
board ; and, presuming arsenic would come within this cate- 
tory, what kind of a cupboard would be required where half 
a ton is kept in stock, and must the master always remain at 
home to unlock this treasury of death ? The thing is simply 
preposterous. Why all this ado about the storing of poisons ? 
Has the business care and vigilance so depreciated, or has the 
number of poison cases so increased as to call for this change ? 
Why not include guns, pistols, and rope ? For there are 
more deaths from their abuse than all the poisons put toge¬ 
ther. The sconer this outcry is hushed, and the Council at 
some different work, the better. We may, I think, safely 
leave the matter in the hands of individual chemists, for the 
law and self-interest guard the matter sufficiently. 
I am free to confess that I am exceedingly jealous of the 
Pharmaceutical Council, and it seems clear that unless they 
■are resisted they will throw then’ silken web around the hun¬ 
dreds of unsuspecting country chemists, and finally bind 
them hand and foot. Country chemists who are not favoured 
with better-class dispensing businesses had better look out 
are it be too late, and the Council had better look more to 
the interests of the general trade than try and toady favour 
with the Privy Council. 
Sleaford , March 1 Gth, 1871. Geo. Weston. 
Sir,—Having taken as much interest in trade matters for 
years past as most of my fraternity, and perhaps more on the 
poison question, I may venture to express my opinions upon 
the reasons "why the Council have been induced to suggest 
regulations concerning the keeping and dispensing of poisons 
after giving them my earnest consideration. 
I am quite willing to admit that, by the decision of the 
members at the last Annual Meeting, the Council was bound 
to consider the subject, but their decision should have been 
arrived at by ascertaining the sentiments of those who had 
sent them to the Board to represent their requirements. 
The “ Reasons” reveal many things not creditable to a body 
representative of chemists and druggists. 
IV hen we read that in 1865, t: the Council, encouraged by 
public opinion (but more especially by the opinion of the 
medical profession) ”, it sounds reasonable, as the Council at 
that time was a select few, representing a small section of the 
trade intimately associated with the medical profession ; but 
in 1871 the Council, being no longer only the executive of a 
society, but the governing head and constituted protector 
of all registered chemists, should receive its encourage¬ 
ment, not from the public, not from the medical authori¬ 
ties, but from its own constituents. When will the Council 
comprehend that its duties are no longer to legislate so 
that the Society may be enriched and exalted, but to se¬ 
cure the advancement and benefit of every chemist on the 
register ? 
In writing history, even of trade progress, it is well to be 
accurate; and I endorse Mr. Reynolds’s remark, that allu¬ 
sion to the United Society was uncalled for. Before the Bill 
of the Pharmaceutical Society was made known, that of the 
United Society had been suggested by our energetic Man¬ 
chester brethren; and it "was the existence of that Bill, even 
more than the opinion of the medical profession, which com¬ 
pelled the Council to legislate. The promoters of the United 
Society’s Bill have no desire to shirk the responsibility of 
having defeated the Pharmaceutists’ Bill, but rather to take 
credit for comprehending that Government would not sanc¬ 
tion any Pharmacy Act which did not include a Poison Bill 
also. 
Experience at that time had not taught the Council that, 
although in league with the medical authorities, the outsiders 
were too strong for it; but this it discovered in the end, and 
was compelled to accept the tactics of its opponents; and 
yet it has already forgotten that salutary lesson, and is 
again attempting to yoke all members of the trade to its 
restrictions, when all they ask is to be left alone. When de¬ 
feated it talked of uniting the whole trade, and so accepted 
the policy of its opponents, by whose efforts we became a 
corporate body. Yet, no sooner was that happy result of 
their combination achieved, than, forgetful of its obliga¬ 
tions, it returns to its former policy, is influenced by the 
opinion of the medical profession, and makes tacit under¬ 
standings with Government medical officers, without consi¬ 
dering how far its constituents desire it. It is with much 
regret that those who laboured hard and long in opposition 
to the old Council see the reformed government acting in 
such a manner as to create fresh factions, and give en¬ 
couragement to agitators and the formation of new societies, 
when there was an opportunity to cement the whole trade 
under a liberal and consistent government. 
If proper representative men were chosen, we should not 
behold the lamentable spectacle of a Society divided against 
itself, but, by judicious conduct, they might bring the whole 
of the trade to their support. 
We want on the Council men who will take a broad and 
liberal view of all sections,—men, not influenced by the me¬ 
dical profession, but. having a clear understanding of what 
a shop in the country is like as well as a pharmacy in 
town; who know that the regulations suited for the one 
would be totally inapplicable to the other, and that—even 
if suitable to both—interference of any kind would be in¬ 
tolerable. 
It is easy enough to classify all under the head of chemist 
and druggist, but what a diversity of character there is 
among them! The pharmaceutist in a rich neighbourhood ; 
the prescribing chemist in a poor district; the retail druggist 
in a mixed locality; large sellers of chemicals; those who in¬ 
clude seeds, oils, confectionery, etc.,—all are chemists, but 
the regulations suitable to one would be utterly impracticable 
to all the others; and yet we are threatened with compulsory 
rules for one and all! There is but one remedy. The ques¬ 
tion at the Annual Meeting must be handed over to the new 
