April 15, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
S29 
SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1S71. 
POISON REGULATIONS. 
From the report of the proceedings at the late 
meeting of the Council, it will be seen that there was 
ground for the statement made in anticipation last 
week as to the removal of any reason for the con¬ 
tinuance of such hostile action as we have with re¬ 
gret seen commencing within the last few weeks. 
Since then we have received a letter on the subject 
from Mr. Sandford, and as the resignation of the 
President is an exceptional circumstance, we insert 
it here. We do not doubt that even those who differ 
from Mr. Sandford will recognize the strength of 
the convictions which have guided his action, and 
we believe that all will agree with liim as we do in 
deprecating anything like personal contention. 
“ TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘ PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL.’ 
“ Sir,—In your Journal of last week you announce 
my resignation of the Presidency, ‘ which followed imme¬ 
diately on the carrying of Mr. Dymond's amendment .’ 
“It is not to disconnect the one circumstance from the 
other that I desire to address some words of explanation 
through you to my fellow-members, but to show them 
that the same devotion to the interest of the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society which has animated me for so many 
years past, has impelled me in my present course. 
“ When the Government insisted on introducing into 
the Bill of 1868 the principle of regulations as to the 
keeping, dispensing and selling of poisons, two courses 
were open to us; either to accept the duty of framing 
those regulations for ourselves, or to allow the power of 
doing it to be placed in other hands,—in the hands, per¬ 
haps, of men utterly unacquainted with our business. I 
need scarcely say the former course was accepted as by far 
the best arrangement. In 1869 the Council, feeling that 
the time had arrived for action, with great care and 
deliberation framed the regulations about which we 
have had so much controversy, and submitted them to 
the Privy Council, in order that there might be har¬ 
monious action in the event of the Society agreeing to 
them; they were accordingly brought before the general 
meeting in May last. 
“ Time rolled on, and desiring to know before the 
meeting of Parliament what steps the Pharmaceutical 
Society had taken in the matter, the medical officer of 
the Privy Council wrote to'the Registrar for information. 
Again the approved code was brought before our Council 
and repeatedly confirmed by overwhelming majorities. 
But the opponents, although in minority at the Board, 
had a good cry for the country,—for nothing stirs up the 
minds of men more than the information, whether true 
or untrue, that their liberties are about to be trampled 
on,—and a wild, unreasoning clamour was raised on a 
mere sentimental grievance. I say a sentimental 
grievance, because on all hands we find the very pre¬ 
cautions we proposed have been in use (and, for the 
matter of that, were proposed because they had been in 
use) in many establishments throughout the country. 
The regulations in themselves have been declared good, 
hut their compulsory observance altogether unbearable. 
No man courts personal restrictions, just, perhaps, as no 
man pays taxes for the mere love of paying, but men 
consent to pay taxes and to conform to laws as a duty to 
their fellow-men; therefore, although the task of op¬ 
posing seems to have become almost a pleasure, I believe 
throughout the.length and breadth of the land, many of 
our best and wisest members, although naturally silent, 
would have cheerfully submitted to the terrible restric¬ 
tions (!) which were being prepared for them. In this 
belief, Sir, I was not shaken by the 1 tall talk ’ resounding 
about us, and for that reason felt it my duty still to 
support the introduction to the Annual Meeting of the 
regulations as compulsory; not without hope that when 
calmly deliberating on our position, the Society would 
have risen to a sense of the duty it had undertaken 
when great privileges were accorded to it, and in the 
full confidence that when such a step had been taken, 
no charge of neglect, and consequently no plea for fo¬ 
reign interference, could be brought against us. It was, 
therefore, according to my judgment, in the best interest 
of the Society that I laboured, and at last laboured alone. 
“ In the discussion arising on Mr. Dymond’s motion, 
I had the great satisfaction of hearing from those gen¬ 
tlemen with whom I had voted during two long and 
trying years, that their opinions remained unchanged 
although their votes were now to be given in an exactly 
contrary direction. Time will prove whether other 
parties than those who best understand the matter will 
not try their hands at the work which we have just 
abandoned, and if they do, I for one shall be unable to 
say, ‘ Gentlemen, there is no cause for interference.’ 
“ It should be remembered that the tendency of the 
present day is to departmental action in the executive. 
That which was formerly the business of any Govern¬ 
ment office now becomes the duty of one, and is conse¬ 
quently more narrowly looked after. 
“ Matters concerning the public health seem to have 
fallen to the Privy Council, and more immediately to the 
medical department of that Council. Any man who 
reads the periodical reports issuing therefrom, must be 
at once convinced of the extreme activity of the heads of 
that department, and with an active official to guide them 
and a large majority in the House of Commons, Minis¬ 
ters may succeed sooner than is expected in doing that 
which they had entrusted—with misplaced confidence 
they will say—to our hands. The question before us is en¬ 
tirely apart from ‘free-trade’; it is one of public protection. 
“ Thus much, Sir, for my persistent perseverance in an 
unpopular course, for my seeming disregard of the wishes 
of many men who had shown me so much kindness, 
showered on me so many honours. 
“ And now for my withdrawal at the moment of defeat 
from the high office I had held so long. I resumed that 
office in June last under very difficult circumstances. 
Death had deprived me of my partner, and I could no 
longer spare time from my own business to watch the 
interests of the Society as they should be watched. At 
Christmas I had determined to vacate the chair, but 
then arose the clamour which I felt must render the 
office of President a most unpleasant one, and I could 
not in honour leave such a bed of thorns to a successor. 
I told you in a former letter that I simply held on for 
this reason. The moment the vote of the Council ex¬ 
tinguished the compulsory regulations I felt at liberty, 
and availed myself of that liberty, to retire. It may be 
asked why I retired when but a few weeks would have 
relieved me of the duty F And here again, Sir, I felt 
that in doing so I best advanced the interest and honour 
of the Society. I hold that the President, who is con¬ 
stantly called on to act on behalf of the Council, should 
fairly and faithfully represent its opinion; and I could 
not fail to see that when my hand, and mine alone, was 
held up to support a particular line of action in regard to 
the vital question of the year, I had ceased to be in 
accord with my fcllow-councillors—therefore retirement 
was the only honourable course open to me. 
“ You doubtless rejoice that the pages of your Journal 
will no longer be encumbered by this controversy, to the 
exclusion of more valuable matter; that contention in 
our body will cease, and I heartily join you in that 
