578 
IS CHLORODYNE SUBJECT TO A MEDICINE STAMP ? 
labour at the same time as those engaged in other lines of business. X cannot 
but think that the “ difficulty ” urged by us as employers in the matter is a 
great deal of it imaginary, and within our own power (if we have but the 
will) to remove. 
I wish a few employers would lay the question well to heart, and give you 
some opinions on the case, so that before the dreary winter nights are here 
again we may say that at eight o’clock we have “ done.” 
April 20, 1866. 
X am yours, 
A Master. 
PORTRAIT OP THE LATE JACOB BELL. 
TO THE EDITORS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Gentlemen, On the nineteenth anniversary of the Pharmaceutical Society, 
as reported in your Journal, Yol. I., 2nd series, p. 601, Mr. George Edwards 
L observed that, in Landseer’s sketch at one sitting, taken only a few days be¬ 
fore Mr. Bell s death, they had a marvellous creation of the man, which they 
would all highly prize. ’ Now this is reported just six years ago, and I had 
hoped to have seen an engraving published as a frontispiece to the Journal long 
before this time. 
Y hen Jacob Bell was editor, he embellished his fifth volume with a portrait 
of the first President of the Society, "William Allen ; he placed a portrait of 
John Bell as frontispiece to his eighth volume, and the twelfth volume is orna¬ 
mented by an engraving of Jonathan Pereira. 
May I not hope that, at the approaching anniversary, the members will re¬ 
quire an engraving of the founder of their Society to be published without 
further delay ? 
I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
April 13 tJi, 1866. Joseph Leay, M.P.S. 1841. 
IS CHLORODYNE SUBJECT TO A MEDICINE STAMP? 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—I beg to send for publication the following correspondence in relation to 
chlorodyne. 
When i found the Board of Inland Revenue asserted that all chlorodynes 
were subject to the Patent Medicine Stamp Duty, I sent two bottles of mine, 
as sent out by me, to* them, asking if mine was liable. Their reply was as 
follows:— 
cc Inland Revenue Office, Somerset Rouse, London, 
“ 7 th February, 1866. 
“ Sir,—In reply to the inquiry contained in your letter of the 22nd ultimo, 
I am directed to state that the Board are of opinion that the label on the bottles 
forwarded by you does not render the preparation mentioned liable to Patent 
Medicine Duty. 
“ I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
u T. Sargent.” 
On receiving this letter, I issued bills, stating that u T. Barling had received 
an intimation from the Inland Revenue Office, to the effect that Barling’s Chlo¬ 
rodyne is not liable to the Patent Medicine Duty.” You will please observe I 
could not say that all chlorodyne was not subject, but my chlorodyne, with my 
label, clearly is not, according to the opinion of the Inland Revenue Office. 
