April 8, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
811 
Cfje IJjmrmateutol Journal. 
-♦-- 
SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1871. 
Communications for this Journal, ancl boohs for review, etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, JF.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, IF Envelopes indorsed “ JPharm. Journ.” 
THE LAST STEP IN POISON REGULATION. 
Between the Scylla and Charybclis of displeasing 
the governing body of our Society and of becoming 
obnoxious to the reproach that we do not purvey in¬ 
formation with such promptitude as befits this age 
of progress, we are irresistibly impelled to commit 
what may be deemed a breach of the regulations 
with which we ought to comply. But as the occa¬ 
sion is one that we may fairly term exceptional, we 
trust that the balance of opinion will be in favour of 
our disobedience,—since the majority of our mem¬ 
bers, as well as the great body of the trade, must be 
anxious to hear of anything taking place in reference 
to a question that interests them so profoundly as 
that of poison regulations. 
We understand that in the Council Meeting of 
last Wednesday, Mr. Sutton’s motion that the sense 
of the members be taken on the question at issue, 
was followed up by an amendment, proposed by Mr. 
Dymond, to the effect that the Council perceiving the 
opinion entertained by members of the Society to be 
so decidedly antagonistic to the application of com¬ 
pulsory regulations, should, therefore, suggest the 
issue of the proposed regulations simply as recom¬ 
mended by the Society. This amendment was put 
to the vote and carried with only one dissentient 
vote—that of the President. 
We may at least congratulate our readers that 
the question which has for months agitated our 
Society and the entire trade is thus finally disposed 
of. There is no longer any ground for hostility. We 
trust that we may also, by anticipation, congratulate 
them on the removal of all reason for future anta¬ 
gonism between town and country, and on the pos¬ 
sibility of provincial and metropolitan energies being 
hereafter united to promote the general interest of 
pharmacy rather than directed to hostile efforts. 
We have now learnt to appreciate the power of the 
country members, and may therefore take this oppor¬ 
tunity to urge upon them not to neglect its exercise 
in all matters which affect the advancement of the 
trade. 
And though last, not least, we would most sin¬ 
cerely express our regret that the attainment of the 
result we now record involves a loss which it may 
be long before the Society can make good—we refer 
to the resignation of the Presidency by Mr. Sand- 
ford, which followed immediately on the carrying 
of Mr. Dymond’ s amendment. Mr. Sandford’s 
labours for the good of pharmacy are far too well 
known and appreciated by the trade to need any 
reiteration here, and we feel confident that few will 
hear of his resignation without profound regret that 
his strong sense of duty has rendered it impossible 
for him to be any longer the leader and representa¬ 
tive of British pharmacists. 
MEDICAL DRUGGISTS. 
We commend to the consideration of our medical 
contemporaries the state of things described in Dr. 
Campbell Black’s paper* as existing in Glasgow', 
more especially since the reverse of the picture was- 
not long since prominently dw r elt upon in the columns 
of the Lancet in a manner which, we think, w'as 
wanting in fairness to the general body of pharma¬ 
cists. 
Having but recently expressed our opinions on 
“the relations of iiliarmacy to medical practice,”! 
we will not again enter upon the arguments which 
w r e then adduced in answ r er to the complaints of our 
contemporary on the subject of counter-prescribing 
by druggists. We are no advocates of the practice, 
but while w r e know that under some conditions it 
would be studiously avoided, we cannot shut our 
eyes to the fact that under other conditions, pro¬ 
bably of most frequent occurrence, it is unavoidable 
and, if only for that reason, not properly a ground for 
reproach by medical practitioners. Indeed, we 
believe that all reasonable men, whether medical 
or pharmaceutical, would agree in the opinion that 
no precise rule can be laid down in this matter as to 
what is proper and what improper, but that under 
the guidance of mutual respect and consideration 
betw’een medical men and pharmacists, the individual 
judgment of those concerned is the best means of 
preventing any interference wdtli the proper functions- 
of either class. 
The circumstances described by Dr. Campbell 
Black, however, are of such a nature as not to be 
regulated by any such principle of action. The 
keeping of open surgeries—as they are called—or, 
pi plainer terms, druggists’ shops, by medical men 
is an open invasion of the pharmacist’s business, not 
a mere s hif ting of the demarcation between that 
business and the sphere of the medical men, deter¬ 
mined by local conditions. We would willingly 
entertain the idea that the practice described by 
Dr. Black w r as confined to Glasgow'; but though we 
know this is not the case, w r e trust that city is un¬ 
equalled in regard to the extent of the evil. 
* See p. 812. t See p, 410. 
