-June 10,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
993 
Jiljitrnutttufkal Journal. 
•-♦-- 
SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1S71. 
Communications for this Journal, and 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 Biiem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, IF. C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, TF. Envelopes indorsed 11 Pharm. JournP 
THE REGULATION OF PHARMACY FROM A 
MEDICAL POINT OF VIEW. 
Ouh esteemed contemporary, tlie British Medical 
■Journal, has undertaken to censure with vehemence 
the action latety taken in reference to poison regula¬ 
tions. Though an entire column is occupied with hard 
words of condemnation, the real facts of the case are 
evidently so little understood by the writer that we 
•are filled with wonder to find a journal so likely to 
be well informed on this subject should have perpe¬ 
trated such an absurdity as to charge the Council 
'with breaking faith with the Government. It is 
■equally absurd to blame the Council of this Society 
with having avoided a responsibility that never 
rested until it, and never was imposed upon it by 
the Government or the Pharmacy Act, or anything 
save our contemporary’s imagination; for though 
the public at large, or the general press, might well 
be excused for ignorance of the fact, we little ex¬ 
pected to find a medical journal even forgetting that 
the power of prescribing poison regulations does not 
rest until the Council at all, but that it is the Society 
:alone, in its corporate capacity, which has that power 
under the Pharmacy Act; yet this cardinal fact is 
-overlooked by the British Medical Journal ; and 
since its censure of the Council has no other founda¬ 
tion, we have no need to defend that body against 
the charge of having committed “ a flagrant aban¬ 
donment of public duty.” 
But, apart from tliis strange error, we will not 
affect to be unconscious that our contemporary’s 
strictures were intended to have a wider application. 
No doubt the writer of the article shares the opinion 
of those who advocate the adoption of poison regu¬ 
lations in a compulsory form,—they are a numerous 
and a goodly party, comprising some of the foremost 
men of British Pharmacy,—but we must not forget 
that they constitute a minority of the Society which 
lias the power of acting in the matter. Even Mr. 
Saxdford, the most strenuous advocate of compul¬ 
sory regulation, recognizes the propriety of united 
action in which the minority should succumb to the 
majority, and we have always contended that this 
question must be decided by vote. It has been so 
decided, and whether the decision be right or wrong, 
whether it be a conclusive settlement of the question 
or not, those who hold the opinion of the minority 
have no right to assume that the majority has been 
unmindful of those duties and obligations which are 
imposed upon the Society by the Pharmacy Act, or that 
the opposition to compulsory regulations has been 
instigated by selfish disregard of what is necessary 
for the public safety. Without taking side with 
either of the opinions held on the question of poison 
regulations, we do not hesitate to say that such an 
assumption would be monstrous. However obliga¬ 
tory the provisions of the Act may be in regard to 
poison regulations, it surely cannot be contended 
that the Society is under the obligation to prescribe 
regulations unless they were necessary, and it has 
been decided by the Society that compulsory regula¬ 
tions are not needed. 
The Society has done what it deemed necessary, 
after consideration of the question by those most 
competent to judge. It has, in fact, adopted the 
recommendation of its Council (though the British 
Medical Journal does not appear to be aware of this); 
and until the measures decided upon have proved 
inadequate to secure the public against danger aris¬ 
ing from the keeping and dispensing of poisons, there 
does not seem to be any rational ground for urging 
that further steps be taken. Whenever that proof 
can be furnished, we have little doubt that the mem¬ 
bers of this Society will duly fulfil their obligations 
and exercise their privilege of providing a remedy at 
once protective of the public and conducive to their 
own interests as a class. Meanwhile, we would sug¬ 
gest to our contemporary that his zeal in the matter 
of poison regulations may be fitly exercised in re¬ 
forming the practices of medical dispensers, and with, 
great prospect of benefit to the public. The oppor¬ 
tunity for this has been pointed out repeatedly hi 
this Journal, and it is again referred to in tills 
number by a correspondent. 
THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION. 
To undergo an examination, it will be admitted, 
is not gerierally one of the most agreeable ordeals; 
and if the person examined be inexperienced and 
the surrounding circumstances be strange, the re¬ 
sulting embarrassment doubtless sometimes prevents 
the candidate from doing full justice to liis attain¬ 
ments. This would be very likely to occur in such 
an examination as the Preliminary Examination of 
the Pharmaceutical Society, where a large proportion 
of the persons examined are young, and comparatively 
unaccustomed to judge and act for themselves. To 
assist such in economizing the time at their disposal 
by proceeding methodically to their work, the follow¬ 
ing plain suggestions for avoiding the errors wliicli 
the candidates most frequently fall into, have been 
prepared. We hope that they will be of service and 
prove the truth of the adage,— 
“A word spoken in due season, how good is it I” 
