LEAVE.—FIRST READING. (Hansard, 8 February 1859)

§ MR. WALPOLE

I rise, Sir, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the keeping and sale of poisons. I am not aware whether the House wishes me to go into the details of the Bill now, or to do so on the second reading, but perhaps I may he permitted to state this:—At the end of last Session a Bill for regulating the sale of poisons, founded on the Report of the late Commission, unanimously passed the other House of Parliament. When it came down here great objections were taken to it on two grounds—one that the late period of the Session at which it had come down did not allow sufficient time for its consideration, and the other that the trade and business of druggists would be interfered with by certain clauses and restrictions in that Bill. With regard to the former objections—that arising from the late period of the Session at which the Bill was presented for consideration—that objection is rectified by my bringing forward a Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. With regard to the second objection, I may state that I think I have obviated the main difficulties which stood in the way of the Bill of last Session. But all the reasons which urged the propriety of such a Bill last summer are increased, I think, to an amazing extent by the fearful occurrence which took place in the autumn at Bradford, and I am sure no one holding the high place which I have the honour to do would be doing his duty, nor would Parliament be doing their duty, unless they endeavoured by some regulation to prevent those accidents and mistakes in the sale of poison by means of which even whole populations may be put in peril. The object of the Bill which I venture to propose is entirely to regulate the sale of poisons, and I found my proposal partly on the provisions in the Act which has been passed for further Regulating the Sale of Arsenic. The Arsenic Act was passed seven years ago, and contained certain provisions for regulating and restricting the sale of that mineral. Where a person wishes to purchase arsenic, the fact of 206 the sale, the names of the parties concerned in the sale and purchase, and other circumstances attending the transaction must all be registered at the time. It is therefore a useful question for the House to consider whether those provisions have answered the purpose for which they were intended? According to the evidence of Mr. Bell and other gentlemen representing the Pharmaceutical Society, Dr. Taylor, and other famous chemists, given before a Committee of the House of Lords, the Arsenic Act has, to a great extent, tended to diminish the number of poisonings from arsenic. I will only quote Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor says:— Arsenic—and this is one point to which I beg to call attention—certainly appears to have become less frequent as a poison, for in the last three years there were only two cases brought to Guy's Hospital. Now, generally speaking, there were two or three cases a year in former times, before the Arsenic Act came into force. Again he says:— In the two years, 1837 and 1838—before the Arsenic Act—the poisons chiefly used were: opium 196 cases, and arsenic 185 cases; that is to say, a little over 92 cases of arsenic in each year; but if you look at the Registrar General's Report of last year, you will find that in 1857 the arsenic cases were only 27. I think, therefore, there is reason to believe that the provisions introduced into the Act, as regards the sale of arsenic, have to a certain extent succeeded. But I ought not to conceal from the House that the effect of the Act has been to drive persons to the use of other poisons, instead of arsenic. Well, then, those provisions of the Arsenic Act having succeeded to a certain extent, the question is, first of all, whether they have succeeded so completely as to meet all the difficulties of the case? I am clearly of opinion that they have not, for in the sad calamity at Bradford, by the sale of a deadly poison by mistake for an article supposed to be more or less innocent in itself, the population of a whole neighbourhood was put in peril. The provisions regulating the sale of arsenic merely would not prevent the recurrence of such an accident as that. What you want is, a provision regulating the keeping as well as the sale of poison. If, then, the Arsenic Act has to a certain extent succeeded, while it has failed in other respects, we have to consider in what respect its defects may be supplied. By the Bill of last year it was provided—and that was a clause much objected to—that there should be a separate place—a poison closet—in which all 207 poisons should be kept by chemists and druggists, distinct from other medicines in which they deal. The objection taken to that clause—and which I think was a sound one—was, that the business of a chemist and druggist could hardly go on if he was compelled to keep everything in the shape of a poison in a separate and distinct place; and that objection was so strongly urged that I thought it desirable at that late period of the Session not to go on with the Bill. But I do not think the same objection applies to a suggestion which was made in a Committee of the other House, and the difficulties of the case may, to a considerable extent, be met, with reference to certain poisons, by requiring the parties who sell them and the parties who keep them to have the boxes or vessels containing them labelled in a conspicuous manner with the word "Poison;" and, if those poisonous articles are sold, to label every wrapper or cover in which they may be enclosed in a similar manner. All the evidence before the Committee went to show that such a regulation would have the effect of diminishing, if not of preventing altogether, the fearful accidents which through mistakes frequently happen from poison. Such an arrangement as that is provided for in this Bill; but that alone will not, I am afraid, be quite satisfactory. I believe, in addition to that, you must impose certain penalties on the parties who break the law, and you must have persons whose business it will be to see that the law is observed. I have therefore given power to justices in session to order any constable to enter any shop where those poisonous articles are kept or sold, to see that the law is duly observed. I believe that will have a good effect in inducing chemists and druggists to keep their poisons in a more distinct and separate manner than they have hitherto done. I ought, also, to mention that a great impression was made on the Committee of the House of Lords by the desirability of raising the standard of education and qualification among chemists and druggists; and I think anything that can tend to raise that standard would assist, with other precautions, in lessening the number of accidents from the causes in question. At the same time that would be a measure rather for improving the character of those who compound and dispense all drugs and medicines, rather than a measure which is intended for regulating the sale of poisonous articles. I am anxious 208 to confine this measure to the latter purposes. In referring to the amount of deaths which occur from the inadvertent use of poisons, you will find, according to the best testimony, that the articles are few by which the great majority of those deaths are occasioned. I hold in my hand an extract from the evidence of Dr. Taylor, in reference to the years 1837 and 1838, and one from the Registrar General's Report for 1857. I think the two will give an interesting view of this subject, and will also confirm the opinion I stated at the commencement of my remarks—that the Act regulating the sale of arsenic has, in point of fact, had a beneficial effect. Dr. Taylor says, in answer to Question 789:— I have the statistics of Guy's Hospital for the last few years. From the return of 1837–8 it appears that the mortality occasioned by taking opium was 37 per cent., and by arsenic 35 per cent., making 72 per cent. for these two poisons; so that very nearly three-fourths of all the deaths were caused by opium and arsenic; by sulphuric acid, or oil of vitriol, 6 per cent.; prussic acid, 5 per cent.; oxalic acid, 3½ per cent.; corrosive sublimate, and mercurial preparations, 3 per cent.; and the rest were made up of other poisons, such as tartar emetic, nux vomica and others, varying from 1 to 1½ per cent.; but I have given the principal, making 89½ per cent. altogether—opium, arsenic, sulphurie acid, prussic acid, oxalic acid, corrosive sublimate, and mercurial preparations. That refers to the years 1837–8, and I will advert now to a period 20 years later. I find in the last report of the Registrar General that Four-hundred and one persons died annually of poisoning, and in nearly 113 cases the poison is not specified. Opium is the principal specified poison; by that drug 125 persons are said to have died—namely, 89 by laudanum, 34 by opium, and 2 by morphia. Thirty-four persons were killed annually by prussic acid, including 15 by the essential oil of bitter almonds. Arsenic stands next, and to it 27 annual deaths are referred. The salts of lead kill 23 persons annually, the salts of mercury kill 10, oxalic acid kills 13, sulphuric acid (oil of vitriol) kills 15 persons annually. The deaths from these poisons are understated, as the 113 deaths from unspecified poisons are chiefly caused by them, and in some cases the poisoning is not discovered, and the death is ascribed, erroneously, to disease. The deaths by poisons are murders, manslaughters, suicides, or accidents. They would be greatly diminished if solid opium, laudanum, prussic acid, essential oil of bitter almonds, arsenic, sugar of lead, corrosive sublimate, oil of vitriol, and oxalic acid were only retailed upon the production of a medical prescription. Quack medicines, overdoses, and improper medicines are stated to have caused 183 deaths in five years. These statistics are sufficient to show the House that of the number of deaths which 209 occur from poison many arise from accident. But there is another point to which it is necessary to draw your attention. A common notion prevails that it is possible to diminish the number of deaths occasioned by poison, where the poison is given to others for the purpose of taking away life, or where it is taken by persons themselves with that view. But with regard to self-destruction, I am convinced that you cannot, by any regulations, altogether prevent that form of the evil. It is a crime which people, if prevented in one way, will commit in another. With regard to murder by poison, there are provisions in my Bill which may assist in detecting the perpetrator; but I cannot hold out any hope that it will have a material effect in stopping that crime. If you refer to the Registrar General's returns, you will find that eight-tenths of the cases of self-destruction are by the halter, drowning, or the knife—and there are only two-tenths which can be referred to poisons and other causes. Therefore, it would mislead the House if I held out any hope of being able greatly to diminish the number of suicides by the provisions of this Bill. And as to murders, it may occasionally facilitate detection and promote evidence, but I do not pretend it will do more. Its chief object is to regulate the keeping and sale of poisons, so as to prevent the deaths which occur by accidental poisoning. The other question which I have to submit to the House is, what things should be included in the schedules of the Bill as poisons. In the Bill of the other house there were twenty-three articles in one schedule, and I do not know how many in the other. It was utterly impossible, with such schedules, that the business of a chemist could be carried on. Nor was there any necessity to include all these articles in them. According to the statements I have already made, it will be perceived that the cases of death by poison arise from the administration of a very few articles, and I have therefore cut the number down from twenty-three to thirteen; and I shall be very glad if any hon. Gentleman will point out to me how that number can be further reduced. The only article about which I entertain a difficulty is opium, because it is one of those things which are constantly asked for by the poorer classes of people in small quantities; and if you put a difficulty in the way of giving it in small quantities to persons who desire it, you may interfere inconveniently with 210 these requirements as well as with the trade of the chemist. I propose to get over the difficulty by providing that, where any poisonous article is required by a medical prescription, or where opium is asked for in small quantities, the stricter provisions of the Bill shall not apply. The subject is one of considerable difficulty, and I invite the serious attention of the House to it, in the hope of framing such a measure as will meet completely the end we have in view. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.