CORRESPONDENCE. 
577 
protection to any one who may be unfortu¬ 
nate enough to supply such, supposing an 
accident to occur, and it were proved that he 
had sold strychnine without registration 
and without its being labelled as such. 
I know of nothing more likely to bring 
our Society into public disgrace and distrust, 
than this disposition to retain the profit on 
the sale of these dangerous poisons, wffiile we 
shirk the trouble of registration, and do not 
afford the public that protection which the 
Act was intended to provide. 
Barnard Proctor. 
Grey Street, Newcastle, Neb. 1870. 
Sir,—I think that if those members of 
our trade who hold such a position that the 
sale of patent medicines is almost distasteful 
to them were but placed as nineteen out of 
twenty of their less-favoured brethren are, 
they would hesitate before wishing the pa¬ 
tent medicine licence abolished. As soon 
as that is done, stationers, grocers, etc., will 
sell all the leading medicines—Steedman’s, 
Parr’s, Cockle’s, etc.—at prices leaving a 
merely nominal profit. Now the cost of the 
licence has a deterrent effect. If those who 
wish to legislate for us were to get the 
opinion of the trade, they would find that 
an immense majority would be in favour of 
leaving matters in statu quo, or, at most, of 
doing no more than equalizing the licence. 
The abolishment of it will remove a share of 
our already small profits,—a share obtained 
without much trouble or risk. I propose 
that the opinion of the trade generally be 
obtained, and that steps be taken harmoniz¬ 
ing with the views of the majority. 
I am, Sir, yours truly, 
W. P. Parry. 
148, King Street, Hammersmith. 
"February IQth, 1870. 
Sir,—As discussion of the patent medicine 
licence, etc., has been invited, I venture to 
suggest a thought or two on the vexed 
question. 
First.—It appears to me that the present 
regulations are unjust to the consumer. 
He pays the sum of three-halfpence on the 
shilling, and for what ? For being (in many 
cases) deceived. And I submit that the 
Government and the proprietor are equally 
in fault in the majority of such cases. 
It is well known that the greatest con¬ 
sumers of patent medicines are uneducated 
people, who really think that the word pa¬ 
tent implies, in the case of medicine, the 
same meaning that it does in the case of a 
machine, little thinking that anything or 
everything may be a patent (medicine) by 
putting on it a Government stamp; and all 
the protection the Government grant in 
return for the duty paid (not by the pro¬ 
prietor, but by the consumer) is, that the 
medicine may not be imitated (so far as 
forging the stamp goes). 
Secondly.—The proprietors of patent me¬ 
dicines, in many cases, know nothing of the 
action of medicines (except their own, and 
that seldom by experience on their own 
bodies). Yet they are allowed to put up 
any preparation they like, poisonous or not, 
so long as they stamp it, which is really no 
cost to them in the long-run. And this, al¬ 
though an examined and certified chemist 
may not dispense a mild opiate ordered for 
a patient by an examined and certified phy¬ 
sician, except under conditions carefully 
framed, considered, and enforced by Act of 
Parliament. 
Thirdly.—The cost of a licence to sell 
these medicines is grossly ill-regulated. It 
is well known that many country book¬ 
sellers, who pay the smallest price for a li¬ 
cence, sell many more than those chemists 
and dealers who have the fortune or misfor¬ 
tune to live in the City of London or West¬ 
minster, or in the limits of the twopenny 
post, who pay the highest. 
I would suggest, then— 
First.—If the stamp be not abolished, the 
Government ought, for the duty paid, to 
protect the consumer, by causing all secret 
medicines to be registered. By this, I do 
not mean that the recipes are to be given 
by the owners to the Government (which 
would be both unjust and impracticable), but 
that they should lodge a table of contents, 
or list of active ingredients, at the licence 
office, not to be published, but so that, in 
case of accidents, it might be referred to, to 
see if the medicines were really to blame or 
not. In many cases this would be a boon 
to the proprietors, for instance, when 
‘•Steedman’s Powders” were blamed for 
poisoning a child, who was proved to have 
died from the effects of corrosive sublimate 
at the inquest. 
Secondly.—If the vested interests were 
too strong for the registration to be esta¬ 
blished, would it not be better to abolish 
the stamp altogether, and, instead of it, 
charge the proprietors a manufacturer’s li¬ 
cence, graduated according to the quantity 
made ? Then the man who got the profits 
would pay something like his share to the 
Government, and a great deal of trouble 
and annoyance would be saved, as one pay¬ 
ment would suffice for a whole year. With 
the stamp the name “patent” should also 
be abolished, and then the consumer would 
know that the medicine was not patent but 
secret, and if he chose to trust them he 
would do so at his own peril,—not paying 
for protection, he would have no right to 
expect it. 
