798 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 30, 1872. 
I respectfully solicit a “fair field” for Mr. Charles H. 
Savory, and I am sure that, whether we regard his qualifica¬ 
tions in a personal light, or as derived from the eminent firm 
of which he is now the chief, there can be but one opinion as 
to the desirability of associating him with the government of 
the Pharmaceutical Society. My early recollections of the 
Society recall to me the period when the late'Mr. John 
Savory occupied the responsible post of President for four 
successive years, at a time when the Society derived strength 
from the reputation of those who were the sponsors of its 
young promise. At the same period his two sons were fellow- 
pupils with me at laboratory and lecture, and I cannot doubt 
that we shall renew with satisfaction the honourable relations 
ot the past generation in the person of the present successor 
to the name and fame of his house. 
Clifton, March 2bth, 1872. Rich. W. Giles. 
The Devonshire Poisoning Case. 
Sir,—Baron Bramwell, in summing up the Devonshire 
case of poisoning by muriate of morphia, reported in last 
week’s Journal, states:—“No doubt if Sir William Jenner 
had, in plain, legible writing, described (prescribed) the salt, 
it would have been rather a bold thing for a chemist to have 
refused to make it up.” 
This bold thing was done by the writer some thirty-four 
or thirty-five years ago. The prescribe!’, then a jmung man, 
but now, a man of science, of as world-wide a fame as Sir 
William Jenner himself, sent in a prescription for dispensing, 
written in a “plain, legible” hand, for some drachms of 
“ mur. morph.,” without any prefix “ sol.” or “ liq.” though 
the solution was intended; and this, too, in circumstances 
that had the dispenser not done the very reverse of the 
Devonshire chemist’s assistant, death might have been the 
result not only in one, but in many cases—the prescription 
having been written for the patients of a private hospital. 
This case, and not a few others of a like nature, led me, 
among other things bearing on the qualifications of druggists 
and dispensers of medicine, to write, in a local journal, as far 
back as the year 1854, these sentences:— 
“ In all professions and in all trades it is found that, 
almost invariably, the best educated and best informed is 
also the best business man. Energy never long keeps com¬ 
pany with ignorance in, at least, the special field on which 
the man of energy has entered. And surely, if a good edu¬ 
cation be found so necessary for success in other vocations, it 
must be absolutely necessary in the case of the druggist or 
the dispenser of our medicines. The public are, from time 
to time, startled from their propriety, by hearing of the fatal 
effects of wrongly-administered drugs. Now, while accidents 
in the dispensing of drugs will occasionally happen, even in 
circumstances the most favourable for their avoidance, how 
much more likely are they to occur with an ignorant dis¬ 
penser P It is not enough, in order to avoid or to rectify 
mistakes, that the drug dispenser be merely careful and 
cautious. If a wrong quantity or a wrong article be pre¬ 
scribed or asked for, au intelligent, well-informed and careful 
dispenser will, almost invariably, be able to detect and expose 
the error.” 
After arguing for shortened hours that the education of 
our assistants might be properly cared for, I concluded with 
these remarks:— 
“ 1. The public, for their own safety, have a deep interest 
in the character of their druggists. 
“ 2. The medical men have a like interest in the matter. 
For the correction of possible error in, and for the correct 
reading of hurriedly, or all but illegibly, written prescrip¬ 
tions, it is manifestly requisite that the dispenser be familiar 
with the names, properties, and doses of the agents pre¬ 
scribed. 
“3. The employers, or mastor druggists, have an interest 
in the matter, only inferior to that of the public, or to that 
of the medical men. A few serious mistakes committed by 
an ignorant assistant will quickly tell upou his employer’s 
receipts.” 
The bearing of these remarks, eighteen years old though 
they be, on the case now under consideration, is too obvious 
to require application, and I believe should obviate the 
necessity of an apology on my part for troubling your readers 
with their reproduction at this juncture. 
Glasgow, March 26th, 1872. Daniel Frazer. 
Pharmacy in the Laboratory. 
Sir,—The article with the above heading by our respected! 
President, couched as it was in language so extremely mode¬ 
rate as not to be likely to offend the susceptibilities of phar¬ 
macists so unfortunately placed as not to have room for tv 
laboratory of any description, would I thought have met with 
the approval of every chemist desirous of improving the 
status of those following his occupation. 
So far from complaining, as Air. Ell wood does, that labo>- 
ratory work does not pay, that few chemists possess the skill 
required for successful manipulation, and that the drudgery 
of the shop is quite sufficient to exhaust the energies of tne 
ordinary chemist, I felt not quite satisfied that ground suffi¬ 
ciently high had been taken, or that enough had been saidi 
| in favour of home manufacture. 
I always was under the impression that the main object of 
i the founders of the Pharmaceutical Society was the elevation 
of the trade of pharmacy to the rank of a profession, not by 
mere legal enactment,—that, indeed, would be impossible.— 
but by increasing the knowledge and skill of the compounders 
' of medicine, and assimilating them somewhat to continental 
chemists, who, it is well known, are no mere drudges of tha- 
medical profession, but men of science and acknowledged 
status, ranking, in fact, with the members of other liberal 
professions. 
Alen of that calibre would very unwillingly use in their- 
pharmacies medicines whose activity they could not gua¬ 
rantee, and consequently would, as far as possible, have pre¬ 
pared under their own immediate inspection all medicines 
whose strength and purity could not be easily and satisfac¬ 
torily ascertained. 
Again, the mere mixing of ingredients and sale by retail 
behind a shop counter, although necessary parts of a phar¬ 
maceutical career, would not afford sufficient scope for a mine! 
well instructed in science, and conscious of being capable of 
higher things. 
o o # > 
So far for msthetical considerations. 
As regards practice I can speak with confidence, for having 
a taste for laboratory work, and taking an interest in the che¬ 
mistry of materia medica, I have for a country chemist of 
moderate business done a good deal of laboratory work, much 
to my own interest and amusement, and not a little beneficial, 
I believe, to my customers. Aly experience is so far different, 
from Mr. Ellwood’s, that lean state with truth that there are- 
few galenical preparations in frequent use that cannot be better 
made at home than purchased abroad, and that in almost 
every case the cost of production is less than that of the best 
articles procurable in the market. Rare extracts, liquors and 
active principles should not as a rule be attempted. It is- 
well, however, to prepare such once, so as to have a criterion 
whereby to judge of the article when purchased of the whole¬ 
sale dealers. Of drugs in the whole state, one can by inspec¬ 
tion tolerably well estimate the value; not so of preparations- 
The name of a well-known firm has some significance, of 
course, and it would be very unfair to suspect even the 
authenticity of its productions. But there are many types 
of wholesale druggists, and one cannot forget that, no matter 
how trashy a drug may be, let it be offered at a price, it will 
find a purchaser, and somehow disappear,—not in its crude 
state, we may be sure, ergo in one of its preparations. 
Where a chemist is compelled to work his business single- 
handed, laboratory work is almost impossible ; still an enthu¬ 
siast can do a good deal on a side-counter with the aid of a 
gas furnace and water bath. Air. Ellwood is quite mistaken, 
in supposing that expensive apparatus is required for pre¬ 
paring spt. am. ar., spt. teth. nit. etc. Aly own laboratory is 
a very modest affair, contains no very expensive fittings 
(£100 would pay for the lot, I should think); yet I can 
always, when called upon, adapt it to any of the Pharma¬ 
copoeia! requirements, and do in it occasionally a little original 
research beside. I have just had occasion to move it, so it is 
now in a bit of a muddle ; the furnace, copper and sand-bath 
not yet in position. When it is set straight, Air. E., or any 
other man, is very welcome to inspect it. 
I can well understand that there are few chemists who do 
as I do in this respect, for I have always remarked on the 
extreme rarity of assistants who have any useful knowledge 
of laboratory work. There I find an apprentice very handy, 
and with such assistance the master need not absent himself 
so much from his shop as to lose one way what he gains 
by the other. 
I confess that I think the distilling of aromatic waters 
