202 
BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL CONFERENCE. 
Mr Knapman (Exeter) said that it appeared to him that the objection to magnesia 
would also apply to wax, since this would not be fusible at the temperature of the body. 
He had not found creasote difficult to make into pills. . . 
]yp r qy B. Groves suggested that the most convenient and elegant way of administer¬ 
ing creasote would he in small gelatine capsules ( perles ), in which ether, chloroform, 
etc., were administered in France. , , , . 
The President said that there were objections to introducing, in the undiluted state, 
a remedy so actively caustic as creasote, and provision should be made to combine t e 
remedy with some inert and bland excipient. The objection which he had spoken ot 
against the use of a too concentrated remedy, applied to other cases such as • com¬ 
pressed bicarbonates of soda and potash.” ... 
Mr. Savage said that one grain of wax was sufficient to combine with one minim ot 
creasote, whilst it required five grains of magnesia to effect a similar object. leiiow 
"wax was better than white wax. 
HISTORICAL NOTICES OF CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS. 
BY MR. W. I). SAVAGE. 
The early history of chemists and druggists is so interwoven with the prac¬ 
tice of the apothecary and medical practitioner, that to convey anything like 
a correct notion of our own commencement and progress, must necessarily 
involve their history too ; and whilst it is not my intention to give either an 
elaborate history of dry statistical facts on the one hand, neither can I omit 
on the other to trace as briefly as possible the strange history of our eaily 
friends. The barber-surgeons, the apothecary-grocers, the apothecaries, sur¬ 
geons, and physicians, all of whom have had something to do with our parent¬ 
age. I have purposely avoided any history or reference to chemistry, think¬ 
ing that materials may be gathered at some future time for a pleasing recoid 
of the early struggles of the chemist’s efforts to obtain the philosopher s stone, 
and his subsequent success (if not in obtaining this panacea), a_t least, the ac¬ 
quisition of some valuable knowledge. In the paper which I am about to 
submit to you I claim no merit, it is simply an arrangement ot facts, which 1 
shall endeavour to group together, perhaps not in consecutive order, but m 
such form as I hope will not be altogether uninteresting; and when we have 
reviewed the proceedings of those who have gone before, and who have had 
to bear the burden and heat of the day, let us ask ourselves this veiy peiti- 
nent question , Have we progressed? n .. T 
I have said that in considering the earliest records of the apothecary, I am 
giving our own history, for it is quite evident that our distinctive recognition 
as “ Chemists and Druggists ” is comparatively modern, and necessarily arose 
from the creation of physicians, and the petty jealousies arising from rival 
practice. The earliest record of the apothecary seems to be one Richard 
Eitznigel, who was apothecary to Henry II. ; but little is known of him be¬ 
yond the fact that he was subsequently Bishop of London. Again, it is said 
one Coursus de Gangland for his services as apothecary to Edward 111. (L* 4o ]» 
for taking care of and attending his Majesty during his illness in bcotland, 
was rewarded with the munificent pension of 6c?. per day. In 1511 (Henry 
VIII.) there was an Act of Parliament for regulating the admission of persons 
practising physic and surgery, but no mention is made of the apothecary, 
from which we may infer that they were not well known as a class until 5 • 
(Henry VIII.), when a curious Act was passed, whereby the ignorance and 
cupidity of the London surgeons is to be remedied by the irregular practi¬ 
tioners being tolerated and protected under the distinctive name of apotheca¬ 
ries ; and the reasons assigned for this Act are that the surgeons have sued, 
