308 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
liad incurred a penalty of £50, and that 
anything I might urge in mitigation would 
be heard in due course by the police magis¬ 
trate for this district. So far the matter 
ended in a reduction of the fine to £12.10s., 
against which adjudication others and my¬ 
self memorialized the Board of Inland Re¬ 
venue, and eventually obtained a mitigation 
of the penalty to £i,—there being an ex¬ 
ceptional case in which 10s. was accepted. 
For my part, I considered even the reduced 
amount excessive, and demurred to pay¬ 
ment, purposing a further attempt to ob¬ 
tain a total remission of the fine. In a few 
days however I was spared further trouble, 
by the appearance of two individuals (whose 
demeanour denoted that necessitas non liabet 
leges), one of whom handed me a repulsive- 
looking document, which enforced the im¬ 
mediate payment of £12. 10s. and costs. 
This I reluctantly paid. 
My subsequent endeavour to obtain a 
hearing before the Board, in respect of this 
penalty, simply ended in my receiving the 
information that “they could only abide by 
the legal process of a levy warrant.” 
I shall be very glad to ascertain if it be 
legal to enforce the payment of the greater 
penalty when it has already been mitigated 
to a lesser one, and when no intimation is 
conveyed in the notice given, that non-pay¬ 
ment, would subject me to the imposition of 
the full amount of the fine. Probably the 
legal adviser of our Society may offer an 
opinion upon the foregoing. I trust, how¬ 
ever, that this communication may deter 
others from conferring an obligation upon a 
plausible customer in a similar wav, when 
not in possession of the requisite licence. 
I am, Sir, your obedient, 
John Farmer. 
Putney, October 19 th, 1869. 
Co-operative Trading. 
Dear Sir,—I have read with pleasure Mr. 
Smith’s paper on “ Pharmaceutical Respon¬ 
sibility and Remuneration,” and also the 
remarks that followed, but it appears to me 
they omitted a subject of vital importance 
to our business in London, namely, the 
charges of the Civil Service Stores for medi¬ 
cines. Thinking the time has arrived when 
a few remarks from the Editor of the ‘Phar¬ 
maceutical Journal ’ on this subject, and 
also on that of agency to Civil Service Stores, 
may have good effect on our members, I 
cannot refrain from urging you to take this 
matter up; as it appears to me these things 
will tend to bring about what the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society has to a great extent got rid 
of, namely, the systematic sale of bad drugs 
by unprincipled men. With these remarks, 
I will conclude by giving my reason why, 
when solicited by persons connected with 
Civil Service Stores to become an agent in 
this neighbourhood, I refused. 
1. Because it would be unfair to the trade 
in general. 
2. It would not be honest to make a dif¬ 
ference between customers in charges vary¬ 
ing from 25 to 50 per cent. 
3. That no chemist could sell the best 
articles at the prices set forth in the lists of 
Civil Service Stores, and live on the profit; 
for instance, sweet spirit of nitre, 3 cl. per 
oz., sal volatile, 3d. per oz., or 4 oz. and 
bottle, Is., etc. etc. 
4. That any chemist selling at these 
prices must adopt a course injurious to his 
character and to the public health. 
I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, 
W. W. Urwick. 
Dear Sir,—The Society of the Co-opera¬ 
tive Agency have thought proper to address 
to me a letter, dated October 14, soliciting 
my acceptance of agency. In their book, 
which was forwarded at the same time, they 
state, “ The Agency effects its object through 
the medium of wholesale and retail tradesmen 
of established respectability, who have en¬ 
tered into special contracts to supply ticket- 
holders with goods at little above the whole¬ 
sale rate.” I turn over the pages to see if 
any of my brethren have succumbed to their 
blandishments, and to my surprise I find 
Pharmaceutical Chemists and Registered 
Chemists offering to supply the public with 
drugs and chemicals at 25 per cent, below 
the retail prices, allowing the stamp off pa¬ 
tent medicines. 
Is this system to be extended ? Can it be 
possible that gentlemen of education, pro¬ 
fessing somewhat above ordinary tradesmen, 
can condescend to put themselves on a level 
with the owner of a cutting chandler’s shop, 
to draw a fe'w shillings from the till of his 
neighbour at the expense of his own cha¬ 
racter ? and are our profits so enormous 
that we can afford to put 25 per cent, into 
the pockets of our customers at our own 
expense P for I apprehend the wholesale 
houses do not allow these traders a propor¬ 
tionate discount. Reduction of price must 
mean one of two inferences,—either the sale 
of inferior drugs, or a practice on the part 
of the vendor (especially in dispensing) of 
stating a higher price to meet the propor¬ 
tion of discount required. What an en¬ 
couragement for the rising generation of 
assistants and apprentices! spending their 
time and money to qualify themselves, with 
the probability of competing with such noble 
members of the Pharmaceutical Society. 
I am, dear Sir, 
Your obedient servant, 
A Founder of the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society. 
October 16 th, 1869. 
