778 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 25, 1871. 
Council, and the Society will have the opportunity of placing 
on the Council fourteen men who will determine not to have 
our liberties infringed. 
March 18th, 1871. John Wade. 
Sir,—The question of the proposed new regulations as to 
poisons has been well discussed in the Journal, but as I felt 
it my duty strongly to oppose all coercive measures at the 
meeting of Liverpool chemists on the 16th inst., as one of the 
founders of the Pharmaceutical Society I wish to give a few 
reasons for thus differing from the Council. 
Firstly.—The Pharmaceutical Society was formed expressly 
to oppose all compulsory legislation from without. At its 
formation it completely succeeded in defeating very similar 
oppressive measures to those now threatened, and up to the 
passing of the Poisons Bill it effectually protected the trade 
from this class of legislation. The Poisons Bill was thrust 
upon it by the non-pharmaceutists, backed by the Govern¬ 
ment, and now there is strong evidence that the Council is 
about to leave dependence upon its first principles, viz. im¬ 
proved education and status, with self-control and govern¬ 
ment, and to adopt or accept a course of obnoxious inter¬ 
ference and control, which, however mild at first, will cer¬ 
tainly prepare the way for future tyrannical interference, 
until all self-government is destroyed, and the calling is 
degraded. 
Secondly.—The mechanical arrangement of bottles, and all 
similar distinctions, as every chemist must know, will utterly 
fail to add any efficient protection against accidental errors. 
Before the end of a busy day, or even during a few hours of 
active and pressing business, any possible arrangement of 
bottles, caps, or cupboards will be utterly broken into and 
destroyed, and all safeguards from such a system will entirely 
break down. Even the poison bottle, when once in the 
hands of the public, will be used freely for all purposes; 
servant's, nurses, and juniors will be quite accustomed to 
drink the contents of such bottles, and the poison bottle 
which came in a few days ago from the chemist with deadly 
contents will be as much, if not more, likely to be taken in 
mistake for the vinegar or linseed tea, simply because the 
shape of the bottles rather than the labels is to be trusted to. 
Thirdly.—If some slight protection can be proved to be 
thus afforded, even this does not justify the infliction of a 
degrading and insulting system of legislation which will 
expose chemists, above all other class of men, to pains, penal¬ 
ties and oppression, and make it impossible to conduct the 
business lawfully. My own business is not so difficult as 
many, but I have found it impossible in every instance of 
urgency fully to carry out the present Poison Bill, and the 
poison book is most obnoxious to many customers; but should 
any chemist, in any hasty or forgetful moment, send out an 
article which, from the carelessness of the public, afterw'ards 
causes the death of a valuable life, the outraged feelings 
against him for any trivial omission will know no bounds, 
and the whole trade may prepare for still further oppressive 
law's. 
Lastly.—Such legislation is un-English, and belongs only 
to despotic governments. If the Pharmaceutical Council 
cannot or will not any longer protect us, the chemists of the 
United Kingdom must and will rise up, and tell the Privy 
Council and the House of Commons that we are doing all we 
can to protect life and health, but we will not be hampered 
and degraded by oppressive enactments. If this is done, 
there is no fear whatever that the House of Commons will 
ever attempt such tyranny, while the House of Lords has 
already decided that the chemist himself must know better 
how to arrange his bottles than they can tell him. 
As one of the founders of the Society I beg a small space 
in the Journal. 
Oxton, 20th March, 1871. Joseph Ball. 
Sir, Minute legislation is always burdensome and vexa¬ 
tious, and often futile. We have an illustration of this in the 
late Cab Act. I was astonished when a cabman placed in 
my hands a small pamphlet containing a number of regula¬ 
tions he was to observe in his daily avocation. On my re¬ 
marking the perplexing complexity of these regulations, and 
asking him what he intended doing, his reply was character¬ 
istic, “Take no notice and go on as usual.” I fear if phar¬ 
maceutical legislation becomes microscopical, we shall have, 
in sheer self-defence, to “ take no notice and go on as usual.” 
It is hard enough to have to carry in our memory the Phar¬ 
macopoeia without having a cabinet lawyer in addition. 
We were told, before the passing of the Poison Act, that 
our business would be increased at least one-third, but I 
think the majority of us, if candid, would confess that the 
reverse is the case. We are now told, if we will suffer a 
strait-waistcoat to be placed on our internal arrangements 
and movements, it wall not bo so in reality. For my part, I 
believe it will be as stringent as the enforcement of the 
Poison Act, and ten times more worrying. All legislation 
ought to be based on broad principles, not minute and tire¬ 
some regulations. Whatever regulations are made ought to 
be within the easy obedience of struggling tradesmen as well 
as the fops of pharmacy. Take the poison cupboard recom¬ 
mended in the Lancet. Many of us could not find room for 
such an apparatus in our shops if we wished, and the expense 
of it to some of us w r ould be irksome, nay, impossible. Such 
complicated gear is likely, by constant working, to get out 
of order, and while it is being repaired, where are the poisons 
to be placed ? A cupboard is at all times stuffy and incon¬ 
venient. Poisons are far better on a shelf by themselves, 
where they can be plainly seen. As the labelling every poi¬ 
sonous article sold “ poison,” is considered sufficient for the 
public safety, surely the same regulation ought to be suffi¬ 
cient for our safety in selling and dispensing. In legislating 
for us, our legislators must remember we are thinkers and 
not automata. 
Bottles of a peculiar form or colour for poisons would be 
troublesome to the pharmacopolist and burdensome to the 
public. The word “poison” on any bottle, whatever its 
shape or colour, ought to be a sufficient safeguard. 
I fear this pother about poisons, if carried too far, will 
lead to a reaction. Wealthy chemists will be having two 
shops, the poison shop and the safe shop. All diseases, 
doubtless, can be cured without the use of any poison, and 
the public will naturally ask, “ Why should we take a poison 
to kill a disease, and thus run the risk of being killed our¬ 
selves ?” 
Were a surgeon to announce that he cured disease without 
any poison, I have no doubt he would soon obtain a large 
practice, for the public are becoming uneasy at having to 
take medicine which requires such careful manipulation, and 
may, through misadventure, give them their death-blow. 
March 21st, 1871. E. K. C. 
Sir,—If asked to vote on the poison question, I really 
could not do so, I should be obliged to remain neutral; such 
is the position, I am sure, of hundreds besides myself. 
If the question were merely the introduction of measures, 
voluntary or not, conducive to safety, there would be no dif¬ 
ficulty in deciding what to do. 
The proposed regulations, in themselves, are not so much 
objected to, from what I can make out of the correspondence 
on the matter and the opinion of numerous pharmacists (em¬ 
ployers and assistants) as to the consequences which would 
result from their adoption. 
The Council of the Pharmaceutical Society should, I think, 
take chemists generally more into its confidence, and tell 
them more about the matter than it has. Is it afraid of, or 
does it despise, the opinions of the many thousands not con¬ 
nected with the Society ? 
As all chemists really now constitute one body, the body 
as a whole should be consulted; if it is, all will be knit 
together in one bond of fellowship, and forgetting bygones, 
all will work together for good and be one united society. 
What will the adoption of the regulations lead to ? seems 
to be the question: to the appointment of inspectors to see 
that they are carried out, is the reply that comes from most. 
The Council has not enlightened us on this point. We must 
not take a leap in the dark. If there are to be inspectors, 
who will they be ? A decided objection is made to the in¬ 
specting business, but I do not stick at this myself. Who- 
will the inspectors be? Will the Council appoint them? 
Many, I dare say, would not object much to have their 
arrangements overlooked by a brother pharmacist, who, 
knowing more about the profession or trade, would of course- 
be the best judge of matters and understand any difficulty 
that may arise; but if medical men are to be the inspectors, I 
would most decidedly oppose, in every way, the adoption of’ 
the regulations at the very outset. 
Another objection is that the regulations at present are- 
not intended to apply to other than pharmaceutical and 
registered chemists. You, Sir, have said that this is no 
