August 19, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
159 
won’t hurt you,” no wonder his happy confidence is some, 
what contagious. The Act, some may think, would not be 
enforced; it has no teeth, and therefore even Mr. Simon 
could not make it bite. 
But surely it were the part of wisdom to look into this 
before, rather than after, its infliction; to submit it, at least, 
to a previous qualitative analysis. Docs it contain the ele¬ 
ments of informations ? Has it a trace of penalties ? Is it 
at all forwarded by summary convictions ? If so, whether 
through official inspection or otherwise, it is not a thing to 
be assumed with a “ light heart.” 
The time will probably come when the amenities of the 
Privy Council Office will be regarded as dangers escaped; 
when the attempt to encumber chemists with restrictions, 
while the necessity for them was fast vanishing, will be seen 
as a monstrous injustice; and when even Mr. Giles will dis¬ 
cover that “loyalty to pharmacy” is best observed neither 
by inviting legislative interference, nor by willing submission 
to compulsory regulations. 
Glastonbury, August 11th, 1871. T. Mathew. 
Sir,—There is a difference of opinion as to whether the 
Pharmacy Act of 1868 required as a matter of necessity, or 
only provided as a matter of possibility, that further regula¬ 
tions for the dispensing and storage of poisons would be 
framed; but if it be necessary to consider the amendment of 
the Bill, that circumstance certainly affords the opportunity 
of reconsidering whether or not it would be advantageous to 
enact regulations such as it is said were contemplated, the 
real problem, both for ourselves and for Parliament, being 
the greatest good to the greatest number. 
Seeing that the signers of Mr. Sandford’s circular in favour 
of the “ Bill to amend” have sought the aid of Parliament to 
impose upon themselves and their neighbours a code of addi¬ 
tional regulations which they say are free from objections, 
.and would, be highly conducive to public safety, it is reason¬ 
able that we who have taken an opposite view of the practi¬ 
cal value of the proposed measure should give a candid con¬ 
sideration to what they may be able to describe as their 
experience of the working of the proposed code. 
As far as my experience has gone, I have not been favour¬ 
ably impressed with the regulations; and though I would at 
any time have read with interest an account of the experi¬ 
ence of my neighbours, I have as yet only met with general 
expressions of approbation, without such particulars as 
would enable me to judge of the way in which the details of 
the scheme are carried out. 
The circular states that the regulations were taken from 
the systems practised in the best-regulated establishments, 
and I think we may legitimately conclude that the signers 
anean their own establishments, which we willingly admit are 
many of them eminently well conducted, and under most 
favourable circumstances for a satisfactory trial of the pro¬ 
posed plan. As there is a very large number—I believe I 
might sav a very large majority—of the trade who do not 
agree with the signers of the circular, we may reasonably 
request some of the latter gentlemen—say the first six on the 
list—to give a detailed account of how the regulations work 
in one or two of the points which have been most objected to. 
I take the first six signatures on the list,— 
Allen and Hanburys, 
J. B. Barnes, 
John Bell and Co., 
W. L. Bird, 
Blake, Sandford and Blake, 
Bolton and Co., 
and respectfully invite them to communicate to the Journal, 
or to myself privately, for public good, details of the precau¬ 
tions they use in the storage of each of the following poisons, 
and also—for comparison—the precautions, if any, observed in 
the storage of the subjoined list of drugs which are not 
poisons. As I do not wish to trespass unreasonably on their 
time, I limit my list of poisons to the official preparations of 
one Natural Order, and my list of non-poisonous drugs to a 
small number, which may be instructive by comparison ; and 
I should feel it perfectly satisfactory if the particulars were 
furnished by the chief assistant or manager in each esta¬ 
blishment :— 
Poisons. 
Decoct. Papaveris. 
Extractum Papaveris. 
Syrupus Papaveris. 
Opium. 
Confectio Opii. 
Emplastrum Opii. 
Extractum Opii. 
„ „ Liquidum. 
Linimentum Opii. 
Pilula Ipecacuanhas cum Scilla. 
„ Plumbi cum Opio. 
,, Saponis Composita. 
Pulvis Cretm Aromat. cum Opio. 
Vinum Opii. 
Suppositoria Plumbi Composita. 
Morphias Acetas. 
Liquor Morphia; Acetatis. 
Morphiae Hydrochloras. 
Liquor Morphia; Hydrochl. 
Suppositoria Morphiae. 
Trochisci Morphiae. 
„ Morphias et Ipecacuanhas. 
Drugs not Poisons. 
Extractum Physostigmatis. 
„ Nucis Vomicae. 
„ Stramonii. 
Hydrargyri Sulphas. 
„ Nitratis Acid. Liquor. 
01. Crotonis. 
Linimentum Iodi. 
Acid. Carbolicum. 
If, in response to this request, we should be favoured with 
the experience of these, or any other firms of noted standing, 
it would be most desirable to have the replies drawn up with¬ 
out intercommunication, as diversity or coincidence of expe¬ 
rience would thus be most instructive, and would be likely to 
lead ultimately to greater unanimity. 
11, Grey Street, Newcastle, Barnard S. Proctor. 
August loth, 1871. 
Sir,—"We have heard a good deal lately about the education 
of pharmacists, and yet, on looking back a few months and 
reading the correspondence on the Poison Bill, we cannot but 
admit that that education has signally failed. 
“ Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes, 
Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros.” 
Does it indeed ? If Ovid had lived in our day he never 
would have written that. A body of presumably educated 
men treat one another with the barest courtesy, and often 
with something far short of that, and why ? because their 
opponents hold different opinions from themselves. Mr. 
Sandford is a “ traitor,” because he zealously works in aid 
of a cause which he believes best for the public weal. The 
Defence Association is a body of “ misguided men ” and 
“ factious agitators,” because they differ from Mr. Balkwill, 
and so on. 
How very generous, how very liberal-minded we are get¬ 
ting with our education! I think if our pharmacists, one 
and all, had shown a little more respect for their opponents’ 
opinions, the poison question would now be settled. As it is, 
I fear we shall have the same painful ordeal to undergo in 
the next session of Parliament. 
Preston. Ax Apprektice. 
Chixese Materia Medica. 
Sir,—Adverting to Dr. Porter Smith’s book on this sub¬ 
ject, which received notice in your pages some little time 
since, may I be permitted to point out two or three errors, 
and—as I believe—correct them. I know how difficult it is in 
a foreign country, removed from books and civilized men, to 
produce a moderately good book on a scientific subject, but 
that is no reason why the imperfections of such work should 
be passed over. In the interest of science, it appears to me 
to be the duty of those who detect mistakes to apply them¬ 
selves to their correction. 
The remarks to which I desire to direct attention occur on 
page 140, and are to the following effect:—“ Lycoperdon 
giganticum (Ma-peh). Species of Puffball and Truffle are 
met with in Central China. The brown broken, globular 
masses of this species of Lycoperdon, said to vary from the 
size of a Chinese bushel to that of a peck, are met with in the 
drug shops here in a dried and decayed state. They are full 
of the reddish-brown, powdery spores, which are employed as 
