736 
CORRESPONDED CE. 
have done under the circumstances, but I 
felt in duty bound to oblige my customers, 
and I was vain enough to suppose that the 
confidence which I had gained with respect 
to the quality of my drugs, and the care in 
manipulating them, was the cause of the 
preference being given to me for supplying 
the homoeopathic preparations. The de¬ 
mands Became so frequent that, for expe¬ 
diency, 1 was induced to lav in a complete 
stock; and I am now one of those pitiable 
creatures upon whom Mr. Giles vents his 
ire. This brings me to a comparison of my 
case with Mr. Giles’s ideal personage. The 
physician is, strictly speaking, a professional 
man, and any abnegation of the principles 
of his profession renders him unworthy of 
the title. With myself it is widely different, 
for I sacrifice no professional principles; I 
am not consulted as to the peculiar merits 
of the preparations, nor am I called upon to 
prescribe them, for the disciples of homoeo¬ 
pathy are wisely provided by means of 
books with all the information necessary, so 
that they are enabled to prescribe for them¬ 
selves. I neither believe in their efficacy 
nor advocate their use, and, in the absence 
of a homoeopathic pharmacy, I simply sell 
them the same as I do patent medicines and 
Atkinson’s perfumery. Because I yield to 
expediency in such a case, am I to be 
branded with the imputation that I am just 
as likely to supply powdered slate pencil for 
powdered scammony, and that for a trifle I 
would sell my conscience with my goods? 
I feel bound to resent such an imputation, 
and I consider that Mr. Giles, in his over¬ 
zeal to gain for the pharmacist a profes¬ 
sional status, which he himself admits must 
ever be of a limited character, is exceeding 
his mission, and it would be much more be¬ 
coming if he would confine his abilities to 
his own well-regulated pharmacy. If he is 
anxious to give his craft the benefit of his 
superior abilities.—and I am sure that he 
will find us an attentive audience,—let him 
first look back to the noble founder of our 
Society, and copy him as an example, for he 
will not find amongst his correspondence 
such extreme language as he makes use of, 
—for Jacob Bell was a pattern of toleration 
and large-mindedness,—and then let Mr. 
Giles come down from that aerial pinnacle 
from which he addresses us, and upon 
which, bv fortuitous circumstances in which 
he has taken but a small part, he has been 
enabled to place himself; let him come 
amongst us and ascertain our besetments, 
and I doubt not that he will modify his 
opinion. One thing is certain, that, if ho¬ 
moeopathy be destined to advance, and it 
certainly is gaining ground, the united oppo¬ 
sition of the whole of the pharmacists in the 
country could not cheek it, for the motive 
of our opposition would be too apparent. 
For my own part, I am of opinion that if 
we did not think so much about it, we should 
not feel it affect us. I have not written 
with the view of raising a controversy, for I 
am Mr. Giles’s junior, and I admit my in¬ 
feriority in ability; and if he had written 
in a spirit of moderation and forbearance, 
no one would have paid a greater deference 
to his opinion than myself; but, if he 
pleases to address his brother pharmacists 
in such extreme language upon a topic re¬ 
specting which I am glad to see that you, 
Sir, differ from him in some points, he can¬ 
not but expect strong language in reply. 
I beg to remain, Sir, 
Yours most respectfully, 
Jas. Swe;ndei<\ 
Darlington, April 9th, 1870. 
Sir,—Having read Mr. Giles’s tirade 
against chemists who sell homoeopathic me¬ 
dicines, I should feel obliged if you would 
insert this letter on the other side of the 
question. Has he not somewhat overstepped 
the bounds of prudence ? I presume he ob¬ 
jects to the sale of homoeopathic medicines 
because they are “ shams,” and I must say 
I think for another reason also, viz. because 
homoeopathy is opposed to allopathy. How¬ 
ever, “ Honi soit qui mal y pense.” 
He objects then to the sale of homoeopathic 
medicines because they are shams. 1 chal¬ 
lenge him to prove it. I have not the least 
doubt that if a person went into Mr. Giles’s 
shop, and asked for a box of Morrison’s 
Pills (Nos. 1 or 2), or Parr’s Life (?) Pills, 
he would be able to have them.' Does Mr. 
Giles believe in them, and the host of other 
quack medicines that are daily advertised to 
cure all the “ills that flesh is heir to”? 
Surely he must. Does he not sell them ? 
And of course he would not sell anything 
that is a “ sham,” for “ is not Brutus an 
honourable man ?” How r can he condemn 
the sale of homoeopathic medicines by che¬ 
mists as a “reprehensible practice,” while, 
at the same time, he sells allopathic medi¬ 
cines that are as great or greater shams ? 
And he must look at all these “ cure-alls” as 
nothing less than shams. Let me remind 
Mr. Giles that chemists do not sell homoeo¬ 
pathic medicines as “a department of phar¬ 
macy,” any more thati he sells Morrison’s 
Pills as such. They (the chemists) sell the 
one just in the same way as the other, viz. 
to oblige, and for the convenience of, their 
customers. If a person asked a chemist to 
prescribe something for some little ailment, 
he would not recommend or give homoeopa¬ 
thic, but would prescribe the usual remedies. 
Therefore, to quote Mr. Giles, we “ may not 
unreasonably suppose that the pharmaceu¬ 
tist who humbugs one customer with his 
consent ” (to wit, selling Morrison’s Pills 
and the like) “may humbug the rest for his 
