220 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [September 9,1871. 
so persistently endeavour to confuse two distinct questions 
one of which has already been settled by the Legislature ? 
Far be it from mo to suppose that I can influence Mr. 
Schweitzer. Unlike him, however, I have no objection to 
argue with those “ who do not wish ” to be convinced, but only 
with those who refuse to be, and such letters as his and that 
of Mr. Balkwill, in a recent number of the Journal, justify 
us in classing the writers among the latter, and in supposing 
that it would require something much stronger than reason 
to make an impression on their prejudices. 
Charles Eve. 
Hampstead, September 3th, 1871. 
Sir,—I do not think Mr. Sclrweitzer’s letter and the esti¬ 
mate he forms of his contemporaries in general, ought to pass 
unnoticed. His inequitable partiality nearly equals that of 
Squire Western, in Fielding’s novel, who wished the whole 
human race might go to perdition rather than his Sophy 
should suffer injury to her little finger. Why should the 
names of those dead people, Bell, Dinneford, Godfrey and 
Cooke, etc., or their living representatives, or even the 
managers of the establishments bearing such names, “ carry 
more weight than all the chemists of the back streets of 
London and other towns taken together ” ? And, in point 
of fact, one of those eminent persons, if it were possible to 
recall him from Elysium and consistency remained among 
men, would assuredly uever “ sign any petition in favour of 
legislative interference.” 
If the appeal to authority were conclusive, I consider the 
opinion of Mr. Schacht, who is capable of taking a clear and 
temperate view of the situations, and of conveying his thoughts 
to the public in good and forcible language, should avail more 
than the appeal to a multitude of abstractions. We hold the 
great metropolitan houses in due respect, but maybe allowed 
to believe there are fifty shops in London where dispensing is 
quite as well done; and that, too, uuder the vigilant super¬ 
vision of a principal whose faculties are quickened by a sense 
of personal interest and individual responsibility. The same 
may be affirmed of many a country business; no doubt of 
Mr. Schweitzer’s among the number. A druggist always 
ought to know, and generally does know, how to order his 
own affairs better than any extraneous person can instruct 
him. For my own part, as an Englishman, I claim, or at 
least desire to retain, the power of conducting my business in 
the manner which I believe most beneficial to the public in¬ 
terest and to my own. Those who are enamoured of despotism 
and eager for restraint, are entitled to enjoy their strange 
opinion. But there is an assumption of superiority in their 
tone which is unpleasant to the other members of the trade. 
“ Liberavi animam meam.” 
Truro, September 3th, 1871. S. Feavee. 
Sir,—Like many others I also am quite tired of reading 
discussions on poison regulations, and would not write a 
line on the subject but that I think a correspondent last 
week made some grave mistakes, either from want of experi¬ 
ence in country life or from prejudice. I will venture to say 
that the names of firms like Bell, Dinneford, Godfrey and 
Cooke, Hanbury, Savory, etc. are not worth more than those 
of all the chemists in the back streets of London; moreover, 
in my opinion, they are worth absolutely nothing in com¬ 
parison with numbers of chemists both in London and the 
country. Are some half-dozen first-class firms in London 
competent persons to hold the leading-strings of the country 
on such a subject as the keeping and dispensing of poisons P 
How would they manage if their bread depended not on a 
high-class trade where Is. may be charged for a single pill, 
but on one in which they had to supply a number of agricul¬ 
turists with corrosive sublimate, arsenic, etc. ? There are many 
such businesses in the country, and in most of them dis*- 
pensing, etc. is, nevertheless, carried out as strictly and cor¬ 
rectly as in the first establishments in London. Since we, as 
a body, cannot agree on the subject, I think it best we should 
be silent, and agree to differ for the future; let each tub stand 
on its own bottom; let those that wish for law make one of 
their own, and those that think differently continue as they 
think best. 
A West Countryman. 
We have inserted these letters—as we did that of 
Mr. Schweitzer—reluctantly, and simply in the desire to 
afford to all a fair opportunity of expressing their opinions, 
and defending themselves. But it is evident that there is no- 
longer any need for continuing this course, and that it might 
rather be prejudicial than otherwise. We therefore decline 
to publish any more letters on the subject until such time a3 
it may have assumed such new aspect as may demand further 
notice. Meanwhile, we commend to our readers such a care¬ 
ful consideration of all that has been written and done in 
regard to the disputed subject of poison regulations, as may- 
enable them to contribute towards a removal of the difficul¬ 
ties that have distracted British pharmacists during the past 
few months.— Ed. Pharm. Journ.] 
J. David, G. Brownen, “ Sempervirens” and J. S. H. —We- 
have received the enclosures. They shall be attended to at the- 
termination of the vacation. 
“ Ferrum.” —The iron maybe used again, if necessary. 
31. 31. B. —You will find the names of some firms where 
you might obtain what you require printed at Yol. I. p. 480, 
but we cannot undertake to recommend any particular hoi s?- 
You should consult a directory. 
“ Theta.” —Several formulce for hair dyes have already been 
given in this Journal. Further information might be ob¬ 
tained by communicating with the Editor of the Hairdressers? 
Chronicle. 
G. Brown. —The last edition with which we are acquainted 
was published in 1866, by Asselin, Place do l’Ecole de Mede- 
cine, Paris, price 15, 16, or 17 francs, according to the bind¬ 
ing. It might be obtained direct, or through any foreign 
bookseller. 
“A Country 31ember ” writes, in reference to the discus-* 
sion on the merits of Extractum Carnis in last week’s Jour- 
nal, to mention as a somewhat noticeable fact that his dog 
will not touch food in which Liebig’s Extract has been 
mixed, but will eat with the usual relish the same food con¬ 
taining gravy made in the ordinary way. 
A. P. S. (Wolverhampton).—If you had added the spiri* 
tuous preparations last, you would not have experienced the 
difficulty referred. 
Charles J. Bell (Wellingborough).— (1.) The proper way 
is to distil the oil with water, and to apply the usual tests to- 
the distillate. (2.) Yes, providing a registered chemist and! 
druggist were engaged. 
B. and Co. —It would be necessary for the seller to put on 
a 3d. stamp, or to have a sweet wine licence. 
J. Bingley. —-The hydrochlorate of morphia may be kept 
in solution by using a larger proportion of solvent. It 
requires twenty parts of water for solution. See a paper on 
the subject by Mr. Martindale, Pharm. Journ., 2nd Series, 
Yol. XI. p. 480. 
B. B. —The quantity of liquor potassa? is insufficient to- 
form an emulsion. Mucilage, or yolk of egg, would have 
answered the purpose better, though, of course, it would 
have been improper to have used them in the case referred 
to. 
B. B. S. (Salford).—The Pharmacy Acts are, 31 & 32 
Yict. cap. 21, and 32 & 33 Viet. cap. 117. These and other 
Acts referring to the qualifications of chemists and druggists 
and to the sale of drugs, may be found in the Calendar of the 
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which can be ob¬ 
tained from the Registrar, price Is. 3d. 
Philip 31111 er (West Derby).—We are at a loss to account 
for your experience. 
Erratum. — The Pharmacy Bill. —Mr. Schweitzer writer 
to say that in his letter of last week, the sentence :—“ Names 
like Bell, Corbyn, Dinneford, Godfrey and Cook, Hanbury, 
Savage,” etc., should be read:—“Names like Bell, Corbyn, 
Dinneford, Godfrey and Cook, Hanbury, Savory, etc., carry 
more weight than all the chemists of the back streets of' 
London and other towns taken together.” 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Mr. C. H. Southwell, Mr. G. Burrell, Mr. J. R. Jackson, 
Mr. W. Gill, Mr. G. Cocking, Messrs. J. Sanger and Sons, 
C. M., N. O. P., R. B. S., “Philos,” “ Fair Profit,” “Che- 
micus” (Sheffield). “ Chemicus ” (Redditch), “Amara” and 
“ Anonymous ” are referred to the rule as to anonymous cor¬ 
respondence. 
