118 
[August 5, 187X. 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND, TRANSACTIONS. 
Caraspnimte. 
*+* No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Seeing versus Feeling and Hearing. 
Sir,—I most cordially agree with the remarks made by 
your correspondent, Mr. M. J. Ellwood, in his letter pub¬ 
lished in the Journal of the 22nd inst. Respecting the addi- | 
tion of bells to bottles containing active poisons, a greater 
absurdity I scarcely thought a chemist would suggest. It is 
quite evident “ Alarm Bell ” (who suggested the addition of 
the bell) is not accustomed to an extensive dispensing or even 
a country trade, or he would have known that it is utterly 
impracticable. It may look exceedingly well, and do to show 
to his few customers what little confidence he has in himself or 
those about him. Allow me to inform him that in country 
towns the greater part of the business of the week has to be 
done in a few hours, and that country chemists have by far 
a greater number of prescriptions to dispense on the mar¬ 
ket days than all the rest of the week put together. And how 
pleasant for a nervous patient waiting whilst a prescription w r as 
being made up, on making the inquiry what that tinkling noise 
is on the tinct. opii, strychnia, or prussic acid bottle being 
touched, to be informed they contained poison ! It would be 
sufficient, I imagine, to frighten such a person out of the shop. 
India-rubber bands, I am of opinion, would in a few weeks 
be entirely useless; and the india-rubber cap on market days 
would in all probability be thrown on one side till the throng 
was over. I would ask if the public has made any demand 
for regulations in the keeping and storing of poisons in che¬ 
mists’ shops? I have not yet been able to learn that they 
have, and it really looks very childish for an educated class of 
men like the chemists of the present day, to ask to be ham¬ 
pered with a set of regulations which would be of little use 
to those asking for them, -who would, in all probability, be the 
first to break the law. Nothing can surpass or even equal 
those arrangements of poisons adopted by the proprietors 
of such establishments, for it is to their advantage to place 
them in such a position that they cannot be mistaken for 
some innocuous drug or compound, especially wdth Lord 
Campbell’s Act hanging over their heads. I would suggest 
that every chemist should purchase a copy of that Act, and 
place it in a conspicuous place in the dispensing department 
of his establishment. Regarding the bottles before the trade 
for dispensing liniments, lotions, etc., a more unsightly and 
useless bottle I never saw than the “corrugated,” without 
even a place to put on a label. The bottle I have adopted 
for some years now for liniments, lotions, etc. is the “ fluted,” 
made by the York Glass Company, which I have found to 
answer exceedingly well. But then I have had them brought 
for sweet nitre, almond flavour, etc., and when I represented 
what use the bottle was intended for, they wished to have 
what they required in the bottle, as it was such a nice one. 
If those who have signed Mr. Sandford’s letter have so 
little confidence in themselves, let them be under inspection 
by all means; but do not ask a respectable and great body 
of traders numbering some thousands, in whom the public 
has every confidence, to be subject to such an indignity. 
Surely the trade is not to be under the thumbs of Messrs. 
Sandiord, Simon and Co.; or where has that privilege gone 
which hitherto has been an Englishman’s boast—“liberty ” ? 
I do hope we have heard the last about the sale, storing and 
dispensing of poisons; and that the chemists of this coun¬ 
try, who labour so long day after day, and are so poorly paid 
for their services to the public, will be allowed to carry on their 
business for the future in peace and quietness. 
Null, July 27th. Chas. B. Bell. 
The Pharmacy Bill. 
Sir, It is surprising how prejudice and passion can blind 
Ihe eyes even of large bodies of men, especially when these 
are aroused by selfish ideas of interest. I had not the honour 
of signing the letter addressed to members of Parliament 
printed in yours of the 22nd, but it has my hearty concur¬ 
rence, and I shall use what little influence I may possess to 
thwart the ill-timed and ill-advised action of misguided men, 
who are factious agitators rather than members of an intelli¬ 
gent majority. I will not argue the question, for men who 
have written and acted as the opponents of the Pharmacy 
Bill are at present wholly insensible to argument or reason, 
for it would be like flaunting a red rag to a mad bull,—only 
infuriate them the more. They may have succeeded im 
stifling right feeling and calm judgment for the time, just as? 
the manufacturers of Pennsylvania have imposed protection 
against the interests of America. So these short-sighted men 
are imposing a retrograde movement to the detriment of the- 
best interests of . the trade. But this will not last; “men 
will awaken j” the tyranny of petty dictators of the dema¬ 
gogue class, who have lately ruled the elections, and obtained 
a temporary majority, will be overcome. The calm sense of 
the Society will assert its supremacy, and we shall live to- 
wonder that in the year of grace 1871 there could have been 
found amongst us obstructives as stupid as those who have* 
opposed this Bill. 
Because other nations are not free traders, therefore we- 
will not have free trade, is an exploded argument. It is the- 
same as saying, because medical men who keep open shop arc- 
not to be placed at once under these wise regulations, reco n- 
mended by the whole Society for voluntary adoption, there¬ 
fore we will not have them for chemists’ shops. 
If the regulations were wise,—and their adoption proves* 
that the Society considers them so,—we should advocate their 
compulsory enforcement on all vendors of drugs, and include- 
medical men, rather than say because we cannot achieve- 
immediate and complete success therefore we will idly anil 
negligently refrain from attempting any whatever. 
I trust Mr. Sandford will not be swayed from his prin¬ 
ciples of duty by the senseless tirade against him. The 
approval of his conscience and judgment will shield him* 
from these ungenerous attacks; and such terms as“ treason,’' 
“ treacherous,” etc., will only recoil with tenfold force upon 
men who deserve the censure they give, and which the future? 
will fix upon them. 
Plymouth, July 29th, 1871. F. P. Balkwill. 
Sir,—The desire expressed by you that agitation on the* 
question of poison regulations should cease, after the with¬ 
drawal of the Pharmacy Bill from the present session, has- 
evidently not been gratified. Now, although I have no wish- 
to foster a spirit of antagonism in our Society, I must be? 
permitted to say something in answer to your correspondents 
who have exercised their undoubted right of criticizing my 
conduct on this occasion. 
A new light seems to have broken in on Mr. Schacht, who 
thought that chemists were all of one mind in reality, and all 
believed “ each individual member of their fraternity to be 
competent to frame all requisite precautions for the safety of 
the public and the security of his own means of living.” DicB 
it never occur to Mr. Schacht that men may be competent and? 
yet at the same time unwilling or indifferent ? Does he no^ 
know that even in his own district a score of persons dealings 
in poisons may be found who take no precaution whatever,, 
who keep tincture of opium and tincture of rhubarb side by 
side on their shelves, with no more difference than the ordi¬ 
nary label ? Does he suppose that those gentlemen who* 
framed regulations, and for two years upheld their imposition,, 
deemed them unnecessary? And, again, does he not know 
that Mr. Forster over and over again stated that if compelled 
by want of time to withdraw the Bill this session, another 
would be introduced at the opening of next year ; and that the> 
general feeling of members of Parliament was that the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society had failed in its duty in not proposing; 
compulsory regulations ? 
j I regard “ the success of the opposition,” with which Mr. 
Reynolds opens, as nothing more than that transient success, 
which often attends men who are prepared to talk against 
time; and I therefore feel that in the best interests of the- 
Society, both those who deem regulations necessary and those- 
who believe they will be forced on us, would do better to per¬ 
fect those regulations, than to stultify themselves by saying* 
“ we admit these rules to be good and practically adopt them, 
but will not recognize their universal establishment.” I think- 
in a former letter Mr. Reynolds said it would be illogical to- 
accept the code even as “ recommendations,” if we declined to 
make it compulsory. He was perfectly right. I do not 
claim the sole honour assigned to me by Mr. Reynolds of 
issuing the circular to which I invited and received the sig¬ 
natures, and it would, perhaps, astonish him to read at least 
a hundred letters of most hearty concurrence which I have in 
my possession. He ask3 why I gathered together the namea- 
