-May 13,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
The Poison Regulations. 
Sir,—Previous to tlie Annual General Meeting next week, 
I wish, with your permission, to say a few words on the 
above. 
Although much has been written on the subject, but little 
conclusion seems to have been arrived at, beyond losing to 
the Society one of the best Presidents it ever possessed, and 
I take leave to say the only sensible man on this subject at 
the Council table. 
The opposition to the Poison Regulations was started and 
sustained by the very self-same party who opposed the Phar¬ 
macy Act in 1866, to wit, the party who are the adherents of 
the Chemist and Druggist; for, all opposition ceasing, that 
party and its exponent cease also; and it is so far unfortu¬ 
nate, that readers of that periodical are not, as a rule, readers 
of the Journal, and vice versa; so that there has been no true 
communion of thought on the subject, and, therefore, no real 
expression of feeling of the profession in its entirety. 
Feeling this I shall, if no one else is found to do so, bring 
the subject formally before the meeting on the 17th instant, 
in order that the question may receive a definite answer. 
My reasons for deprecating the opposition that has been 
offered to the enforcement of these regulations are :— 
1. That while all admit the necessity of regulations, and 
-actually adopt them, yet, unaccountably enough, some object 
to them for no discoverable reason except that they are in 
future to be compulsory. 
2. That the proposed regulations, while complying with 
ihe order of the Medical Council, and satisfying the public 
by clauses 1 and 2, virtually make the case our own, and 
ought to disarm all opposition from our own body by clause 3. 
For, while it might no doubt, in certain cases, be highly ob¬ 
jectionable, if not impracticable, to use peculiar bottles and 
poison cupboards, yet no one could take the smallest ob¬ 
jection to making the poison-containing vessel sensible to the 
touch; the remedy was the easiest conceivable, and applicable 
alike to bottles, casks and jars. 
The turmoil that has arisen on this subject seems to me to 
he totally unreasonable, and utterly devoid of any sensible 
objections, equalled only by the disgraceful scene enacted at 
the General Meeting in May last year, which, with due 
deference to those who differ from me, I must say, is little 
-calculated to raise a body of men who claim an educational 
qualification, and who have recently obtained a valuable Act 
of Parliament, in the esteem of either the medical profession 
■or the public. 
The only objection put forward at all worthy the name is, 
that the restrictions would not apply to medical men, but 
should they? Have they not, as a matter of fact, quite as 
muchyight to dispense their own medicines as to hand them 
over to the chemist to dispense for them ? And does it not, 
as another fact, pay them better to do so ? 
I do not consider that the warning our Council received, 
that they had failed in fulfilling the provision of the Phar¬ 
macy Act relating to poisons, had no significance; we went 
to Parliament for a Bill, and Parliament who had had, be it 
remembered, the question of poisons before them for years, 
gave us a Bill, but a Bill having a poison clause; they, of 
course, not caring a jot for our ideas of vested interest and 
monopoly, but having simply the welfare of the public at 
heart. 
And having got our Bill, which we did want, but contain¬ 
ing a poison clause, which we did not want, what do we do? 
Why, our utmost to stultify all that the Society has done for 
dhe advancement of pharmacy during the last twenty years, by 
ignoring the most important clause in the Bill, arraying our¬ 
selves against the medical men, and showing to the public, 
by whom we live, that we care less for their safety and wel¬ 
fare than for our own pockets. 
The question of poisons having been so prominently intro¬ 
duced, even by the daily papers, we could hardly have done 
anything that would have told so much in our favour as to 
have adopted these compulsory regulations. 
But, Sir, the not improbable cause of much of the present 
opposition is, no doubt, to be found in the bad odour of the 
profession of a pharmacist at the present time; what with 
dispensing surgeons on the one hand, and co-operative stores 
on the other, surely the pharmacist is in great tribulation. 
Still, that is no reason why he should stumble over a pre¬ 
sent imaginary grievance and forget the future good, and 
that good is only to be obtained by union, and a con¬ 
stant endeavour to raise his professional and social status as 
9inf 
much as possible, so that when the change for the better does 
come, he may be in a position to reap the full benefit of it. 
Above all, let us avoid even apparent contempt for our new 
Act, avoid anything tending to an unpleasant collision with 
the medical profession, and avoid all dissensions among our¬ 
selves, or, too late, we may find that Parliament, having given 
us the power of self-legislation, and seeing us incapable of 
using that power, ignores all future appeals, and quietly re¬ 
signs us to the tender mercies of the Medical Council. 
John H. Baldock. 
Norwood, May 8th , 1871. 
The Eaely Closing Question. 
Sir,—Will you again allow me to make a few remarks with 
regard to “early closing” ? 
In last week’s impression I noticed several letters referring 
to the one which you so kindly inserted for me, and at the 
conclusion of which I styled myself “Aspirant to the Major 
Qualification.” Unfortunately, one of the gentlemen who 
wrote does not sec the practicability of making early closing 
compulsory. I am sure that without compulsion we should 
only get a few to act up to the mark, as was the case 
before examinations were made compulsory. I am glad to 
see that this gentleman, ■who has passed the Major Exami¬ 
nation, does not discountenance the movement altogether; 
and, I think, if he considers the matter he will see that there 
is not the slightest chance of the question being discussed by 
employers; whereas we have a faint hope of the compulsory 
system being adopted if we can only get the majority in our 
favour, which, I think, there is little doubt about, as, bearing 
directly on all, there will be no room to express dissatisfac¬ 
tion. The compulsory movement would be quite as prac* 
ticable as the law which limits the hours of confinement of 
milliners and factory girls, also the Compulsory Education 
Act, both of which may be taken as examples. We know' 
there will always be some persons who will only be too ready 
to throw cold water on matters of this kind, but we must dis¬ 
regard them, and make nil desperandum our motto. 
Another thing I wish to mention is “ Sunday work.” We 
are too lenient and obliging to persons on Sunday when they 
come for a pennyworth of cough lozenges or a pound of 
linseed-meal which they may have forgotten to fetch on 
Saturday. Now, I ask, why should this be? Why should 
w r e be confined to the house for the bad memory and failings 
of the public? The fact is, that w T e are so ill-remunerated 
that w r e cannot show that independence which would have 
the desired effect, as may be seen in all other trades. Of 
course it would not do to send a person away, w’hen we know 
that our neighbours will only be too pleased to serve them. 
They should not be served by anybody on Sunday; w r e could 
all then show a more independent spirit. 
Allow me to say, in conclusion, that once these matters 
are considered and put into force, the great advantages and 
benefits derived therefrom will be clearly seen. I am sure if 
the Council would consider this early-closing question, it 
would reflect a much greater amount of credit than the most 
absurd poison question, about which so much has been said, 
and on which even now no satisfactory results have been 
arrived at. 
I hope with “ One who has Passed the Major Examinat ion ” 
the iron may be kept hot by striking. 
London, W., May 6th, 1871. T. S. M. 
Sir,—I would suggest that there is a difference between 
late and long hours. If chemists’ assistants were capable of 
combination for such a purpose, long hours would be doomed. 
As it is, a little consideration on the part of principals would 
remove every grievance on this score. 
After a five years’ apprenticeship, during part of which 
business hours were from 6.30 a.m. until 10 p.m., and during 
the remainder from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m., it was, perhaps, 
natural that I should rebel against long hours. Hence, during 
an assistantship of twelve years I made it a rule to accept no 
situation involving more than twelve hours’ work per diem, 
including meal times. 
As a principal, circumstances necessitated the keeping of my 
shop open more than twelve hours a day (though still an 
hour and a half less than my neighbours); but it is my rule 
to demand of no one in my employment, whether assistants, 
apprentices or errand boys, more than twelve hours’ work 
per diem, including meal times. The adoption of the prin- 
