60 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[July 15,1871. 
Sir,—In tlie recent returns requiring tlic numbers of those 
who signed against Mr. Forster’s Bill, and also the number 
of chemists in the respective towns, opposite Brighton was 52, 
in each case. This has led to an erroneous conclusion, 
which I am desirous of rectifying. All that I saw readily 
signed the petition, but as some w T ere out their names did not 
appear. Others, however, on the register, but not in busi¬ 
ness on their own account, signed, which seemed to me in 
number equal to those that were out. Subsequently, on go¬ 
ing more carefully through the names, I find 56 chemists in 
Brighton in business. I have heard that one of the absent 
ones was opposed to the petition, and therefore, injustice to 
him and the other three whom I did not see, this explanation 
is due. 
July 11 th, 1871. W. D. Savage. 
Sir,—The tabulated return of chemists and druggists is 
very much calculated to mislead, so far as Kingston-upon- 
Hull is concerned, and therefore I must ask you to permit me 
to explain to those it may interest that while the number of 
persons on the register is 121, the actual number of chemists 
in business, as nearly as I can ascertain, is 90, all of whom 
have signed the petition against the new Pharmacy Bill, with 
one exception. 
Please insert this in next issue of Pharmaceutical 
Journal. 
Hull,-July \lth, 1871. Francis Earle. 
Sir,—In the list of petitions in your last number I notice 
an error regarding the Newcastle petition. I stated that 
there were about 70 chemists in Newcastle, and that the 
petition was signed by the chairman and secretary of the 
meeting, according to its unanimous vote. 
Barnard S. Proctor. 
Newcastle-on-Tyne , June 11th, 1871. 
A Conference Question. 
Sir,—In Saturday’s Journal there is a letter, of which you 
take notice, from “ A Conference Man,” regarding certain 
arrangements in connection with the annual meeting of the 
Conference shortly to be held here. 
The suggestion made by your correspondent, “ Mould it 
not be better to make a special arrangement with a first-class 
hotel ? ” etc., is not only a good one, but doubtless an idea 
possessed by many members of the Association. Let me, 
however, say that at this particular season of the year it is 
impossible to secure, so long beforehand, such accommoda¬ 
tion. No hotel here will engage rooms for the forthcoming 
meeting, while many state they expect numerous demands 
from former visitors at this season, so that they are unwilling 
thus early to fix fur any number of rooms. 
Those having apartments to let as lodgings seemingly 
show T the same feeling, and, so far as my exertions have gone 
in this direction, I have been very much discouraged. 
That it would be a very agreeable thing for our members 
to congregate in one large hotel is undoubted, but the diffi¬ 
culties ahead may be shortly noticed. 
1. Who could tell how many rooms to engage and become 
answerable for? We have nearly 1900 members, how many 
will come to Edinburgh ? 
2. From the middle of the present month on till October 
the constant influx of strangers to this place is almost incon¬ 
ceivable. 
3. Not only do the pharmaceutical gentlemen require 
accommodation, but the members of the British Association 
are also expected at this very period in considerable numbers. 
Reasons 2 and 3 are as well known to those having rooms 
to let as to us, and they can therefore be quite independent 
until nearer the time. 
However, I can faithfully promise that if any parties will 
send me a special request and authority to engage rooms, I 
will be most happy to do all I can to fulfil their desire, and 
will get as many in one hotel as I possibly can. 
I may mention, in illustration of the difficulty referred to, 
that one house, having 150 bedrooms to let, on my expressing 
to the landlord a desire that he would promise me a certain 
number, replied, “I cannot do this, as we will have more 
than 150 American visitors just about the very time you 
would require those rooms.” 
I may, however, shortly remind those intending to honour 
Edinburgh on this occasion,, that on Tuesday evening we 
have our conversazione; on Wednesday evening there will 
be the introductory address of the British Association; on- 
Thursday evening the public dinner of the Conference will 
take place: while throughout Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday 
and Thursday the Craigie Hall, 5, St. Andrew Square, will be 
open from 9 till 6 as a reception room, where some one will 
be constantly in attendance to give any information which 
may be required. 
John Mackat, Hon. Sec. 
119, George Street, ’Edinburgh , 
July 11 th , 1871. 
Poison Bottles. 
Sir,—Seeing in your last issue two letters concerning 
poison-bottles, each adopting a method of fixing the cork or 
stojiper, I beg to ask how many chemists would take the 
trouble to remove a fastening before they could get at the 
contents of the bottle, and the few who would do so, would 
they all replace it after use? If not, it would be of little 
value. 
I suggest a small bell attached to the neck of each bottle, 
which would not give extra trouble, and could be seen, felt 
and heard on taking up the bottle to get at the contents. 
I hope this suggestion may prove useful from 
“Alarm Bell.” 
The 'Graphic’ on Poison Regulations. 
Sir*,—I beg to call your attention to a short article in the- 
Graphic of July 8th, respecting a case of poisoning at the 
Islington Dispensary, in which Kino powder was given for 
rhubarb and soda. Mr. Graphic seems to blame the chemist, 
and not the dispenser at the dispensary, for not having his 
packets properly labelled. Are we to put up with this, I ask 
you? Does not such an article make the public shudder, 
and drive them from the doors of a chemist, consequently 
injuring his trade? Ought not Mr. Graphic first examine 
the chemist’s drawers, and see for himself if the packets or 
powders are properly labelled? Or where can he find one 
chemist in fifty or a hundred who keeps kino powders ready 
weighed up ? 
I consider it very hard that chemists should have to carry 
the cargo of mistakes made in public dispensaries. I think 
some, at least, of your readers will agree with me. I hope- 
some one more able than I will bring the case before Mr. 
Graphic, and explain to him the difference between a che¬ 
mist’s establishment and that of a dispensary. 
Bath, July 10 th, 1871. “Fairplat.” 
E. Marshall .—Prussiate of potash is not a metallic cyanide 
within the meaning of the Act, neither is it a poison. 
“ Calyx .”—‘The Journal of Botany, British and Foreign.’ 
edited by Dr. Seemann, assisted by Dr. Trimen and Mr. J* 
Baker, and published at 10, Little Queen Street, Lincoln’s 
Inn Fields, W.C. 
“ Associate .”—The work is out of print, but second-hand 
copies may sometimes be met with. 
Robert Steiuart. —(1.) ‘ Pharmacopoea Borussica,’ editio- 
septima, 1862. (2.) See Yol. I. p. 995. 
W. B. Scott .—Our correspondent’s letter, as far as we are 
able to read it, contains nothing beyond what we have al¬ 
ready published on the subject referred to. 
We are compelled, from want of space, to defer the publi¬ 
cation of several communications. 
The following journals have been received:—The 'British 
Medical Journal,’ July 8; the ‘Medical Times and Gazette,’ 
July 8 ; the ‘Lancet,’ July 8 ; the ‘Medical Press and Cir¬ 
cular,’ July 12; ‘Nature,’ July 5; the ‘Chemical News,’ 
July 8; ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ July 8; the ‘Journal of 
the Society of Arts,’ July 8; the ‘Grocer,’ July 8; ‘Pro¬ 
duce Markets Review,’ July 8; the ‘English Mechanic,’ 
July 7; the ‘Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal’ for July; 
‘Journal de Pharmacie et de Chimie’ for February and 
March. 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Mr. R. D. Mitchell, Mr. J. Birt, Mr. F. Y. Ballard, Mr. T. 
Brewis, Mr. A. W. Postans, Mr. A. H. Mason, Mr. J. Addi¬ 
son, Mr. A. T. Brenner, Mr. E. J. Beale, Mr. M. C. Cooke,. 
Mr. J. Abraham, J. S., W. H. B., S. W. N., T. P. B., C. D. C., 
E. H., R. S., “ Chcmicus,” “ Fair Play,” “ Theta.” 
