428 
THE MEDICINE STAMP AND LICENCE. 
words containing that sound .... Now the principle here involved should be 
limited rather than extended; and as both chemistry and alchemy are words of 
doubtful origin, the practice which prefers e is adopted.” 
Thus, in each instance given by Dr. Harley, the orthography condemned by 
him is capable of justification, and more than this, it can in every case be justi¬ 
fied without the employment of any improbable theories. 
THE MEDICINE STAMP AND LICENCE. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir —In an article which appeared in your last number on “ The Medicine 
Stamp and Licence,” you speak of a probability of the laws relating to this sub¬ 
ject coming under the consideration of Parliament during the ensuing Session, 
and you invite an expression of opinion by those interested in the question. 
When you say that these laws are involved in obscurity, and scarcely com¬ 
prehensible even to officials whose business it is to give an authoritative, read¬ 
ing you but state that which is well known to all who have had occasion to 
communicate with the Board of Inland Revenue respecting them, and beyond 
all doubt that is “ one ground upon which an alteration of the law may probably 
be proposed ” I know not whether we may hope “ possibly to do away with the 
existing regulations altogether ,” although, since your article has attracted the at¬ 
tention of pharmacists, I have heard such a solution of the difficulty confidently 
anticipated At the first blush of the thing, an abolition of the stamp and licence 
appears desirable, not as relief to makers and vendors of patent medicines, but 
as the removal of an apparent encouragement of quackery. Any sensible phar¬ 
macist who reads the pestilential stuff which envelopes a bottle of Cordial 
Balm ” or “ Restorative Elixir,” must feel ashamed that the Government should, 
for the sake of a few pence, permit a stamp to give a sort of quasi-approval to 
such trash • and regarding the question from that point of view, the revocation 
of the laws would be a public benefit. There are, however other views to be 
taken • and I know it is thought by men well qualified to judge, that the duty 
being removed altogether would increase the number of “ proprietary” medi¬ 
cines A trade-mark might easily enough mislead the public, and every village 
huckster might help to thin the population by selling penny or twopenny packets 
of antibilious pills. I am not speaking at random, for I have seen the adver¬ 
tisement of a pharmaceutical chemist in a provincial paper, announcing that his 
pills, at such prices, may be had of all village grocers in the district. 
The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be anxious to advance sanitary reform 
and technical education, but I confess I am doubtful whether, on so indistinct 
a prospect of doing it, he will sacrifice £66,000 a year from the revenue, even 
though that sum may seem but small in his budget. W e have seen how diffi¬ 
cult it is even to remove the imposts on necessaries of life, and I therefore 
think especially as we cannot call quack medicines necessaries, that it would 
answer our purpose better to consider the other four propositions which you 
mention:— 
1. One uniform charge for licence. . , . , , 
2. In addition thereto, that licences should be granted only to Registered 
Chemists and Druggists. , t ,, 
3. Abolition of licences and application of the law imposed on the sale of other 
medicines to stamped medicines. 
4 In addition to 3, some increase in the value of stamps. 
As to the first, I believe it would be a great advantage to equalize the licence ; 
that the revenue would not suffer if all vendors paid ten shillings per annum ; 
