580 
THE SINGLE STEEDMAN’s POWDER QUESTION. 
To this I have received no reply. 
I should like to be informed the grounds of distinction between the following 
labels:— & 
Barling’s Essence of Peppermint, 
Barling’s Syrup of Rhubarb. 
Barling’s Chlorod.yue. 
I am, yours obediently, 
Thomas Barling. 
[Mr. Barling will perceive that the ground on which the preparation to 
which this correspondence refers, is held to be liable to the Medicine Stamp 
Duty is, that it is described as “ Barling's Cklorodyne,” which implies an ex¬ 
clusive right to its preparation ; of course the same would apply to the other 
articles mentioned by Mr, Barling.—ED. Phaem. Journ.] 
THE SINGLE STEEDMAN : S POWDER QUESTION. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—The enclosed correspondence on the above subject seems sufficiently 
important for a place in your pages. The sale of these powders singly has for 
years been a source of annoyance, and, as you will see, the reply of the Board 
of Inland Revenue is sufficiently indefinite to leave the matter pretty much as 
it was before. Who is to decide what the Board would consider the “very 
poorest class ”? How are we to prove that the powder was sold from a packet 
“ duly stamped ”? And, more than all, why grant a special advantage to “ this 
medicine ”? My own experience goes to show that it is not the “ very poorest 
class ” who apply for single powders. I have had great numbers of most re- 
spectably dressed people apply for them, stating that they obtain them elsewhere 
without difficulty. 
I am, Sir, yours most respectfully, 
George Pattison. 
“ To the Honourable Commissioners of Inland Revenue. 
“ Gentlemen,—So far back as December, 1863, I addressed you respecting 
the sale of Steedman’s Powders singly, and without stamps. Having, at that 
time, had frequent applications for single powders, with the constant assurance 
that they were readily obtainable, my inference was that the law, as to their 
sale, was not strictly enforced. Your reply*to me did not clear up this point, 
but simply stated that the penalty for such sales was ten pounds. 
“ I now find that Mr. Young, of Ball’s Pond Road, has applied to you on the 
same subject, and that he has published your reply, dated March 6, 1866, and 
in that reply you state that in strictness a penalty is incurred,’ by so selling the 
powders in question. Now, this wording of your reply leads to my former in¬ 
ference, that although such sales are in 4 strictness ’ illegal, yet they are per¬ 
mitted, or not taken cognizance of by your Honourable Board. May I ask if this 
inference is correct, and if so, if the same rule applies to any other medicine 
besides the one in question ? 
“ The favour of your reply will much oblige. 
u I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
“ 126 , St. John Street Road, London, E.C. “ George Pattison 
“April 2, 1866.” 
'' a/t /~i t, ,,. “Inland Revenue, Somerset House, London, W.C. 
“Mr George Patfason 16» ^ 1866. 
8ir, Ihe Board of Inland Revenue have had before them your letter of 
