184 
MEDICAL OFFICERS REPORT. 
which arc the subject of inquests or trials for manslaughter, it will be observed that 
proof of negligence is not sufficient; the proof must amount to gross or culpable negli¬ 
gence in law, or the wrongdoer will escape. What gross or culpable negligence is has 
not yet been defined, but w r e learn from the verdicts of juries that the keeping of poi¬ 
sons and medicines similar in appearance on the same shelf close to each other is not 
gross negligence ! So the selling of oxalic acid or nitre for Epsom salts, and the keeping 
of these substances in contiguous drawers or packets, unlabelled until the time of sale, 
and then labelling the poison as an innocent medicine, does not constitute culpable neg¬ 
ligence ! The employment of youths of no experience in drugs, who cannot distin¬ 
guish arsenic from calomel, magnesia, or plaster of Paris,—powdered opium from 
powdered rhubarb, or laudanum from tincture of rhubarb, furnish,—by the destruction of 
life, merely illustrations of unavoidable accident or misadventure, and not of gross negli¬ 
gence on the part of an employer! If, however, there be any truth in the proposition 
Solus populi suprema lex, it should apply pre-eminently to cases in which life is exposed 
to destruction under circumstances in which a person is unable to foresee danger, or to 
take any precautions against it. 
REPORT OE THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL 
ON ACCIDENTAL AND CRIMINAL POISONING!. 
To what extent the administration of poison causes death or disease in England is not 
even approximatively known. From the Registrar General’s last Annual Report it appears 
that during the four years 1858-61, 1,059 deaths by accidental poisoning, and 509 deaths 
by voluntary self-poisoning, were returned to him as certified. And during the same 
four years there were also certified 1380 murders, of which no doubt a considerable, 
though not ascertained, proportion was due to poison. But evidently it wculd be 
erroneous to infer from these figures that poison does not in England prove fatal to more 
than four to five hundred persons per annum. The list of deaths by poison is at best 
only the list of the fatal poisonings which are discovered. But here is a cause of death 
which is peculiarly apt to be undiscovered. For the murderous poisoner of course plans 
not to be found out. And the accidental poisoner—the careless dispenser, for instance, 
who supplies a poison instead of ail innocent medicine—is at first unaware of his mistake, 
and may perhaps never be made aware of it. Further, as regards the victim himself,— 
poisons which make no decided impression on the mouth or palate may be swallowed 
quite unconsciously of harm, and their effects may then be confounded with symptoms 
of ordinary disease. And thus, in various ways, whether the administration of poison 
have been accidental or felonious, the essential circumstances of the case may easily be 
such that suspicion is not aroused as to the real cause of the illness. 
Both with reference to the number of cases in which poison is recognized to be the 
cause of death, and with reference to the doubt whether perhaps many other deaths are, 
without discovery, caused by poison, my Lords have deemed it important to consider 
what security the public enjoys against an indefinite multiplication of such cases. And 
in order to the consideration of this question, I, under their Lordships’ orders, requested 
Dr. Taylor to report, from his large experience, what, in his judgment, is the present 
degree of the insecurity, viz. (1) to what extent is injury occasioned by the carelessness 
and incompetence of persons employed in retailing drugs; and (2) to what extent are 
unnecessary facilities given for the purchase of poison for criminal purposes. 
Dr. Taylor’s report points in both respects to a most unsatisfactory state of things. 
First, as regards the facility with which poison may be obtained for criminal pur¬ 
poses, Dr. Taylor sums up the case by stating that “ so long as a person of any age has 
the command of threepence, he can procure for this sum a sufficient quantity of one of 
the most deadly poisons to destroy the lives of two adults ... No one wishing to 
destroy another by poison, and having the knowledge to make a selection among drugs, 
can meet with any difficulty in carrying out his design. If refused at one shop, he can 
procure the poison at another If refused by a druggist, he can procure it at a grocer’s. 
If refused at a grocer’s, he can procure it at a village general shop, where poisons are 
retailed by girls and boys, and no questions are asked. ... In the course of more than 
thirty years’ experience in investigating charges of poisoning, I have met with a large 
