158 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[August 19,1S71. 
nace, wore cracked by the heat, so that when the blast 
was set going the leakage released the gases generated 
in the earth, and these, the combustion being imperfect, 
would be mainly carbonic oxide. Near the source of 
escape the main line of pipes from the blast is intersected 
by a forked line of piping, which is carried back to the 
smith’s shop, terminating under the brick wall formerly 
described as separating the office from the smithy. At 
this point some of the moi’tar between the bricks was 
found to have been dislodged, and in this way the gas 
which had been conveyed through the fork-line of pipes 
was distributed in the office and the little room in which 
Howie was found dead. 
After the experiment with the dog had been made as 
already stated, the door of the room was opened and the 
poisonous gas allowed to escape, the operation of the 
blast also being suspended. The room was again shut 
up. A dog was imprisoned for the night, in the morning 
he was found unhurt. The conditions of this experi¬ 
ment were exactly the same as before, with the signifi¬ 
cant exception that the blast was not going. 
The Alleged Poisoning by Arsenic at Cambridge. 
This case has, after a prolonged investigation, re¬ 
sulted in the discharge of the piisoner. At the last 
examination Mr. Edmund Poster, the solicitor for the 
prosecution, said that he had communicated with Pro¬ 
fessor Letheby, and requested him to make an analysis, 
and asking what portions of the body he would require. 
In consequence of Dr. Letheby’s reply, there were sent 
to him the pudding, the vomit, and various parts of the 
body which have been mentioned. Dr. Letheby after¬ 
wards made a report, in which he said that he was un¬ 
able to find poison in any of the matters submitted to him. 
Professor Liveing said that the result of his second 
analysis being inconsistent with that of the first, and 
also inconsistent with the opinion of another experienced 
chemist, and the whole quantity of arsenic found being 
so exceedingly minute, he could hardly avoid the con¬ 
clusion that it was accidentally present, even though he 
could not point out how it might probably have arrived 
there. This opinion he gave as the result of his experi¬ 
ence. He ought also to state that the whole quantity 
found might be taken by any one with perfect impunity. 
The Bench, after consulting a short time, decided to 
discharge the prisoner, but gave her to understand that 
she would be re-arrested if any other evidence were 
forthcoming. 
Poisoning by Carbolic Acid. 
A case of poisoning occurred at Newcastle, on Friday, 
the 11th inst. A child, named Anthony Grady, three 
years and two months old, son of a labourer, about two 
o’clock asked his mother for some bread and sugar, which 
she gave to him. The child then went upstairs into the 
house of a neighbour, where there had been a case of 
smallpox, and found lying behind the door a bottle of 
carbolic acid, which had been sent for disinfecting pur¬ 
poses. A neighbour living next-door heard the child 
shouting “ Biddy, Biddy, my mouth,” and immediately 
ran to it, and found it suffering from the effects of the 
poison. About half-past three o’clock it was taken to 
Dr. Gibbs’s, but at that time it was sinking very fast. 
All the means likely to save the child’s life were used, but 
without effect, and it died in great agony.”— Standard. 
The following journals have been received:—The ‘British 
Medical Journal,’ Aug. 12 ; the ‘Medical Times and Gazette,’ 
Aug. 12 ; the ‘ Lancet,’ Aug. 12 ; the ‘ Medical Press and Cir¬ 
cular,’ Aug. 11; ‘ Nature,’Aug. 10; the ‘Chemical News,’ 
Aug. 12 ; ‘ Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ Aug. 12 ; the ‘ Journal of 
the Society of Arts,’ Aug. 12; the ‘Grocer,’ Aug. 12; ‘Pro¬ 
duce Markets Review,’ Aug. 12; the ‘English Mechanic,’ 
Aug. 11 ; the ‘Chemist and Druggist,’ Aug. 15; the ‘Ame¬ 
rican Journal of Pharmacy’ for August; the ‘New York 
Druggist’s Circular ’ for August; the ‘ Dublin Quarterly 
Journal of Medical Science ’ for August. 
fempnime. 
*** No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. JFhatever 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 . 
The Pharmacy Bill. 
Sir,—I have read with much interest the numerous letters 
which have appeared in your journal relative to the Amended 
Pharmacy Act, and can only express my surprise at some of 
your correspondents, who seem to treat the matter with the- 
utmost contempt, ignoring Government representatives who* 
have received them as gentlemen, and, with regard to the- 
Bill, have rather acted than said, “ Come, and let us reason 
together.” Reason and common sense seem to me to have 
been thrown entirely on one side by the so-called Chemists’" 
Defence Association,—so much so, indeed, that I think de¬ 
fence should rather read defiance; for some of these gentle¬ 
men appear as though they would fly directly in the face of 
those who, but a few years since, placed pharmaceutists es¬ 
sentially on their legs, instead of quietly reflecting and asking- 
themselves the questions, What is it Government proposes to 
do ? and, What are the objections to such propositions ? 
Perhaps, Sir, you will pardon my trespassing on your space? 
with a reply to these two questions. 
What is it that Government proposes? In the first place,. 
I may say it is no new thing, for the Pharmacy Act of 1808^ 
required, and no one then discussed the matter, that compul¬ 
sory regulations should be provided by the then constituted 
governing body—the Pharmaceutical Societyof Great Britain. 
This Society, up to the present date, has failed to fulfil its; 
contract; and, naturally enough, has been called over the- 
coals. Where was the honesty of the accepted contract, un¬ 
less those who accepted it fully intended complying with, and 
carrying out to the letter, its requirements ? And now wo 
find Government is determined (although the Bill is quietly 
put on the shelf this session, until those who now denounce- 
it as monstrous and inconsistent with liberty have come to- 
reason) to bring in their own Bill, to make complete that Act 
which in honesty they agreed the Pharmaceutical Society 
should do; and the old saying comes true again with regard 
to master and man, “ If you want a thing done properly, do* 
it yourself.” 
What are the objections to these propositions, for compul¬ 
sory regulations ? 
With regard to them, Mr. Sandford has plainly told us, and 
others have repeated the same, that when Mr. Forster was. 
approached in a courteous common-sense manner, he appeared 
most willing, as a gentleman, to discuss in a proper spirit the- 
merits of the Bill, and to withdraw such objections as he 
found necessary for the interests of the pharmaceutists as a. 
body ; but this mode of procedure was at once thrown on one 
side by an infusion of bad blood, demanding the strongest, 
opposion to the Bill itself in a manner, I consider, quite in¬ 
consistent with the character of Englishmen,—and thus ig¬ 
noring the very contract which granted to the Pharmaceutical' 
Society its present elevated position, and which contract re¬ 
quired of those accepting it that compulsory poison regula¬ 
tions should be part and parcel of the same bargain. 
I think, Sir, w r e are unfair and unjust in such hasty action, 
and I most cordially agree with Mr. Sandford, and admire* 
his manly, honourable, straightforward action; for, at the; 
bottom of it all, I believe he has the real welfare of the. 
Pharmaceutical Society at heart. 
Let us not harbour in our Society hard and harsh w r ords,— 
“ treason ” and “ treachery,”—but rather act in unison, con¬ 
ceding and accepting for our mutual good, and the welfare 
and advancement of pharmacy. Then, I think, we shall see 
some of our good old friends, whose names as correspondents. 
and workers, to me, have been conspicuously prominent of 
late by their absence, working again amongst us. 
Arthur Wm. Post an s. 
35, Baker Street, W. 
Sir,—In candour I am bound to admit Mr. Giles’s criticism: 
of my letter is so far correct that there is no mention of in¬ 
spection in the Pharmacy Act Amendment Bill. Whether 
the passing of the Act would lead to such a degradation, is a. 
question wffiich chemists should seriously consider. 
As to the fetters the proposed Act would really impose^, 
when so gentlemanly an advocate as Mr. Giles says “ they 
