CORRESPONDENCE. 
873 
of Mr. Marshall’s argument now rests upon 
an admitted fact, and not upon an hypo¬ 
thesis, and thus becomes, I think, incon¬ 
trovertible. I certainly was astounded to 
find that a pharmacist of Mr. Giles’s stand¬ 
ing should say, “ As for Parr’s pills 1 et hoc 
genus omne,’ they are at all events based 
upon rational principles of therapeutics, such 
as pharmacy acknowledges.” Now the prin¬ 
ciples upon which the system of patent 
medicines is established are, that one medi¬ 
cine is a specific for all sorts of disorders, 
and that the compound which suits one per¬ 
son will be suitable for all who are afflicted 
with the same malady, whatever the pecu¬ 
liarities of their condition or constitution 
may be, and these principles are most cer¬ 
tainly repudiated, and not accepted by phar¬ 
macy. Mr. Giles’s opposition to the sale of 
homoeopathic medicines by allopaths is as 
“ Quixotic ” as any crusade that could be 
raised against patent medicines, and there 
is as much “ arrant folly ” in the system of 
patent medicines as in homoeopathy, 
Mr. Giles asserts that “ Homoeopathic 
practitioners do not now trust to homoeo¬ 
pathic doses.” A case recently came under 
my notice: a homoeopathic physician had 
charge of a lady in a very precarious con¬ 
dition, and the medicines which he pre¬ 
scribed for taking internally were dispensed 
at a homoeopathic pharmacy, but a pre¬ 
scription for a gargle was sent to me; it 
was— 
H. Potassee Chlorat. 5ss 
Aquee *viij 
M. ft. gargar. 
The lady progressed favourably, and ulti¬ 
mately recovered, and if the prescriptions 
for the mixtures were written on the same 
principle as the above, which I dispensed 
eight or nine times, the physician most cer¬ 
tainly did rely upon homoeopathic doses. 
There arc several remarks in Mr. Giles’s 
letter which doubtless he would never have 
written had he been recently employed in a 
London business. 
I enclose my card, and am, Sir, 
Yours faithfully, 
S. S. 
Holloway. 
Cutting Prices. 
Dear Sir,—Having attentively read the 
correspondence appearing from time to time 
in the ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal ’ on the 
great want and importance of uniformity 
in the professional charges for dispensing 
prescriptions, I desire to furnish another 
instance of this, occurring here last week, 
which perhaps you may think worth publish¬ 
ing in the next issue of the Journal. 
The following prescription was presented 
to be partially dispensed (half the quantity 
VOL. XI. 
of the powders only), for which the applicant 
tendered a shilling, stating “ he had never 
been charged more.” The prescription is 
stamped with the addresses of several 
chemists, London and country, and one a 
pharmaceutical chemist by examination, 
where I presume it has been dispensed. 
P. Pulv. Alumin. Sulph. gr. xij 
Pulv. Cubebas 5ij> M. 
Fiant Pulv. Mitte xxiv. 
Capiat j ter die. 
K. Alum. Sulph. gr. iv 
Decoc. Tormentil. §iv. M. 
Fiat injectio ter in die utend. 
Now, Sir, I believe that in nineteen out 
of twenty pharmaceutical establishments, 
rural or metropolitan, if a person applies to 
purchase the quantities of each article or¬ 
dered in the above prescription separately, 
he will be charged more than a shilling fur 
them at the ordinary retail prices. 
One of the parties whose name appears 
on the prescription being a “ pharmaceutical 
chemist by examination,” having thus (if 
our applicant stated the truth) lowered the 
standard of our profession, of what value 
will the “diploma” be to future members if 
this system is to be followed P and under 
present circumstances this must be the case, 
or they must submit to see their share of 
business swallowed by the cutting dispenser. 
I am an old member of the Society, have no 
greed for an exorbitant scale of charges, 
and having been many years engaged in 
business as a pharmaceutical and dispensing 
chemist, can as well afford to worlc for 
nothing as most of the young aspirants for 
future diplomas, or those who have recently 
obtained it; but I ask them to pause and 
consider whether it is not a suicidal policy to 
transact their business in this unnecessarily 
unremunerative manner. 
The matter is a serious one, and should 
be at once dealt with vigorously, and with 
no unsparing hand; for such a system, if 
perpetuated, bids fair to shake the very 
foundations of pharmaceutical status, and 
reduce the operations of its votaries to the 
level of the “cheap John” system. 
Sir,—As our Journal is shortly to appear 
in a new form and to be sent out under 
fresh regulations, I cannot refrain from ex¬ 
pressing my sense of personal indebtedness 
for instruction and entertainment derived 
from the past numbers of the present series. 
I have often thought a great privilege is 
afforded to us in the amount of space which 
is month by month placed at the disposal of 
correspondents, and I sincerely hope that in 
the new series this very interesting depart¬ 
ment will still be maintained. 
H I might be allowed to say a word or 
3 L 
