Jane 1,1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
975 
Cjje |1Ijann;rtc«fic;il Journal. 
-♦-- 
SATURDAY \ JUNE 1, 1872. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs for review, etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London , W. Envelopes indorsed “ Fharm. Jo urn.'” 
SOOTHING SYRUP. 
The value of quietness is variously estimated by 
the persons immediately and individually concerned. 
There is, however, much less difference of opinion 
as to the advantages of soothing the disturbers of 
our peace, in whatever character they appear, and 
procuring quietness at their expense and without in¬ 
convenience to ourselves. But here, again, there 
are many forms of persuasists, and some persuaders 
approach so nearly to the limit of coercion that legal 
objections are taken to their use; and hard labour, 
in lieu of rest, is the penalty which dogs the heels 
of those who favour their employment. 
The value of quietness is very well known to 
baby-farmers, and with them it is reduced to a 
market price, and has its regular quotation. In Mr. 
Ernest Hart’s evidence before the Infant Life Pro¬ 
tection Committee of the House of Commons, he 
gave the customary quotations, ascertained in the 
course of liis inquiry into the subject of baby- 
farming, which has led to the introduction into the 
House of Commons of the Bill now in progress. 
It varied, if we remember rightly, from a penny to 
twopence a day, according, we presume, to the pre¬ 
tensions of the baby-farmer or the squallings of the 
baby. A deduction according to this tariff was 
found to be commonly made where the mother sup¬ 
plies the “quietness” with the baby; the extra 
payment is demanded when the baby-farmer is ex¬ 
pected to purvey food and quietness. 
Translated from pastoral into pharmaceutical 
language, quietness means drugging by opiates; and 
to baby-farmers who live to save appearances, and 
to mothers who prefer to indulge in the luxury of 
tine sentiments, together with an easy and vicarious 
performance of maternal duties, the reading of a 
plain-spoken article recently published by Dr. W. 
F. M‘Nutt, of San Francisco, will produce much 
distress. “ Mrs. Winslow’s Sootliing Syrup—a 
poison.” Pharmacists are well aware of the fact 
that this and most, if not quite all, the sootliing 
syrups, cordials and elixirs sold for the especial 
benefit of infants, under the most amiable titles, 
conceal opium, which is unquestionably a deadly 
poison, and one which needs the utmost care and 
skilled vigilance to rob it of its danger when infants 
are compelled to swallow it. According to an analysis 
which this physician quotes as reliable (American 
I Journal of Pharmacy, May 1st, 1871), ten drachms 
of Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup were found to 
contain “nearly one grain of morphia, and other 
opium alkaloids, to the ounce of syrup.” The spe- 
J cimen of soothing syrup analysed was made by 
Curtis and Perkins, of New York, who are the only 
manufacturers. According to Dr. Taylor, God- 
frey’s cordial was found by Dr. Paris to contain 
half a grain to an ounce. A case has been reported 
where half a tea-spoonful of Godfrey’s Cordial 
which equalled one thirty-second part of a grain of 
opium, was found to have caused the death of an 
infant; in one year twelve children were reported 
to have been killed by this mixture alone. Dalby’s 
carminative contains, according to Dr. Paris, one- 
eiglith of a grain of opium to an ounce; one tea¬ 
spoonful, therefore, contains one sixty-fourth part of 
a grain of opium; but, says Taylor, “like most of 
these preparations it varies very much in strength.” 
An infant is reported to have been poisoned by forty 
drops of this nostrum; thus it will be noted that 
the whole tribe of infantile soothers belong to the 
tribe of poisons. Of none, however, lias so terrible 
an account ever been given as that given by Dr. 
M‘Nutt of this American invention. The directions 
quoted are “for a child of six months old and up¬ 
wards, one tea-spoonful three or four times a day,, 
until free from pain.” A tea-spoonful of this com¬ 
pound, according to the quoted analysis, contains 
little less than twenty drops of laudanum. Three 
drops is as much as a prudent physician would ven¬ 
ture to give; and if such directions be widely dis¬ 
seminated and generally carried out, it is only sur¬ 
prising that we do not hear yet more frequently of 
inquests upon narcotized infants. 
Certainly the Inspectors under the Infant Life 
Protection Bill should direct their attention to this 
subject, and it is one to which pharmaceutists can 
not be indifferent. We do not know to what extent our 
English children may be soothed by this particular 
agent, but Dr. Murray of San Francisco, states— 
“ I have ascertained that there are about one hundred 
thousand two-ounce bottles of it sold annually in 
this city, containing about one hundred and eighty 
thousand grains of morphia which are given an¬ 
nually to the babies of this State.” 
From this datum it is calculated that 14,000,0(K> 
grains of morphia are annually administered to the 
babies of the United States. The objections to pas¬ 
sing a prohibitory law against narcotic nostrums for 
children are not so strong as the objections to a 
Maine liquor law for adults, for infants cannot be 
supposed to have as yet either a natural or an ac¬ 
quired craving for stimulants, and their free will is 
rather impaired than improved by compulsory drug¬ 
ging- 
