October 19, 1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
307 
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1872. 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review, etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
RIDGE, Secretary , 17, Bloomsbury Square , JV.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street , London, JF. Envelopes indorsed u Bharm. Journ.” 
PATENT MEDICINE LICENCES. 
A correspondent has directed our attention to the 
“ great injustice ” he and others similarly situated 
labour under from the present state of the law with 
respect to the rates of licence for the sale of patent 
medicines. It may be of service, therefore, to 
indicate what the law on the ^’subject actually is, 
and wliat are the regulations under which -these 
licences are granted. 
There are no less than three rates of licence for 
makers or vendors of patent medicines— 
The cities of London, Edinburgh, and 
Westminster.£2 0 0 
Within the limits of the twopenny post .200 
In any other city or borough, or in any 
town corporate. 0100 
In any other part of Great Britain ... 0 5 0 
These rates of licence have been in existence for 
many years, but it is questionable whether there is 
any good ground for continuing the special rate of 
licence for places within the range of the twopenny 
post. This range is not very well defined; and it is 
not very evident what equivalent advantages it pre- 
.scnts to a dealer in patent medicines that he should 
he compelled to pay for a licence four times as 
much as is paid by a chemist in any town in Eng¬ 
land. There is perhaps no great hardship in com¬ 
pelling a chemist in a corporate town, city, or 
borough, to pay ten shillings for a licence, whilst a 
person in a smaller place pays only five shillings, 
because it may be supposed that the business of the 
latter will, as a rule, be much more insignificant 
than that of the former. For the sake of sim¬ 
plicity, however, it would be much better to have 
one uniform rate of licence, and we think this 
change would be an advantage both to the Re¬ 
venue authorities and to the vendor of patent 
medicines. 
As long as these rates of duty are legal, such ano¬ 
malies as those mentioned by our correspondent 
must exist; on the borders of cities, boroughs, and 
•corporate towns, there will be cases where chemists 
within the boundary will pay the ten shilling 
licence, and others just outside will only pay five 
shillings ; similarly, those immediately within the 
limits pf the twopenny post will pay £2, whilst those 
just outside will also pay ten or five shillings, as the 
case may be. 
It matters not how many shops may belong to one 
person, one licence will authorize the sale in them 
all, if notice be given to the Revenue authorities 
when the licence is taken out; but it must at the 
same time be distinctly borne in mind, that if one 
shop is so situated as to be liable to a higher rate 
than the others, such higher rate must be paid for 
the general licence. Under this regulation, our cor¬ 
respondent has to pay a licence of £2 for two shops, 
because one is within the limits of the twopenny post, 
and, therefore, he must pay the higher rate of duty. 
The publicity given to the subject in the Journal 
may possibly direct the attention of the Revenue 
authorities to the present anomalous state of the 
laws regulating the granting of licences for the sale 
of patent medicines ; and we hope it will not be 
necessary for further action to be taken to induce the 
Legislature to deal with the subject. A suggestion 
has been made by our correspondent to abandon the 
present rates of licence duty, and to substitute in 
lieu thereof a uniform rate of duty just sufficient to 
raise the same amount of revenue as is obtained 
under the present laws, which average rate would 
be about eleven shillings. For our own part we 
should be inclined to agree with that suggestion, so 
far as the equalization of the rate for licences is 
concerned, but we would at the same time suggest 
that it would be advisable to adopt the present 
higher rate of £2 for all licences, or at least some 
approximation to that sum, rather than the lower 
rate mentioned by our correspondent. We believe 
such a course would be conducive to the interests of 
the chemist and druggists, inasmuch as it would 
tend to prevent the now very general sale of patent 
medicines by booksellers, grocers, and hucksters, 
and transfer it to the hands of those who are legiti¬ 
mately entitled to deal in the potent drugs fre¬ 
quently contained in the preparations sold under 
stamp. 
In connection with tills question we may mention 
that the ‘ Medical Times and Gazette ’ has recently 
urged that in view of the prosperous state of the 
revenue, an attempt should be made to induce the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal both the 
stamp duty on proprietary medicines and the excise 
duty on medicine vendors. It is of opinion that 
no tax inflicts so much injury on public health and 
morality, since for less than £100,000 per annum 
the nostrum purveyors are enabled to vaunt that 
they carry on their trade “ under Government 
patronage,” or “protected by a Government stamp.” 
We cannot agree with our contemporary in the 
opinion that the abolition of the duty would at all 
restrict quackery. 
THE EARLIER CLOSING MOVEMENT. 
In referring again to the Earlier Closing Move¬ 
ment among pharmacists, we are glad to be able to 
report that it is still making considerable progress. 
We learn that several pharmacists at the West End 
have commenced closing their shops at eight o’clock 
on week days, and keep them entirely closed on 
Sundays. The chemists and druggists of Lewisham, 
