579 
January 18, 1873.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
*** A r o notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
“ Dispensing Chaeges.” 
Sir,—Your article on the Globe deserves the best thanks of 
the trade at large. It completely disposes of such clap-trap, 
•and shows the ignorance of non-professional journalists in 
such matters. The Lancet of this week, however, among its 
“ medical annotations,” recites the “inquiry” of the Globe, 
and sums up the case in the following paragraph:— 
“ The fact is, that retail trade is gone mad. There are far 
more shopkeepers than the wants of the public require, and 
they think themselves entitled to all the luxuries and enjoy¬ 
ments of life. Their wives, glorious in sealskin jackets and 
redundant jewellery, are to be seen everywhere ; and the pre¬ 
hensions of the class are becoming a nuisance that it is high 
time to put down.” 
Can the force of scientific and gentlemanly journalism further 
go ? Need any comment be made when a wretched scribbler 
stoops to conquer in this style ? I have been a subscriber 
and reader of the Lancet for twenty years and more, and am 
aware of its frequent assaults on pharmacists, but this is, I 
believe, the first tunding which has touched our wives, and I 
for one desire to protest against such indecencies. I do not 
•object much to be called mad myself, but I do assert that it is 
simply idiotic and to the last degree contemptible to vilify the 
whole retail trade and their wives upon the strength of such 
a ridiculous inquiry as that instituted by the Globe. 
Wm. Matthews. 
12, Wigmore Street, January 15 th, 1873. 
Lancet Amenities. 
A correspondent, writing under the signature “ Translator,” 
suggests the following amended reading of the “ elegant ” 
paragraph to which we have referred in another column : — 
“ The fact is that the medical profession is gone mad, there 
are far more medical men than the wants of the public re¬ 
quire ; and they think themselves entitled to all the luxuries 
and enjoyments of life. Their wives, glorious in sealskin 
jackets and redundant jewellery, are to be seen everywhere, 
and the pretensions of this class are becoming a nuisance that 
it is high time to put down.” 
[We do not, however, quite agree with our correspondent, in¬ 
asmuch as we believe the alteration to be admissible only in 
so far as medical men are content to endorse such represen¬ 
tation as the Lancet seems to think suitable for the pro¬ 
fession.— Ed. Phaem. Jouen.] 
Sir,—It has often been to me a subject of annoyance that 
my long-continued exertions in the cause of pharmacy have 
not been recognised by a public testimonial. Let it not 
assume the form either of a teapot or of a silver inkstand, as I 
have the former and never use the latter. My wife is not 
clothed in a manner I should desire, nor can she realize the 
description in the Lancet —a sealskin jacket would be most 
acceptable; and if the body of Pharmacists would kindly add 
a brougham my services would be amply rewarded. 
Joseph Ince. 
for so much more, with the “ dispensing chemist ” who passes 
a classical examination, pays a large premium, subjects him¬ 
self to a studentship ot tour or five years, and subsequently 
passes two successive examinations before he receives his di¬ 
ploma. He will then, let us suppose, look out for a shop al¬ 
ready established, and will give, say, £500, for one where the 
returns amount probably to £400. May I ask our friend if 
he would put a son to the business if the profits were only, 
say, 30 per cent., equalling £120 per annum, for an outlay 
of at least £1000, and out of which profits he must pay rent 
and taxes, and keep himself and family in a respectable man¬ 
ner ? The profits of a business must be in a direct ratio to 
the turn over; a butcher or a grocer will turn over £500 a 
week, many of our brethren do not take that sum in a year. 
The butcher’s profits at 5 per cent., more than double the che¬ 
mist’s whole receipts, and yet the butcher may not be able to 
sign his name, while the chemist must have had a thoroughly 
good education. The lawyer does not charge merely for the 
skin of parchment or sheet of foolscap ; nor the penny-a-liner 
for just the pens, ink and paper he may consume, conse¬ 
quently the professional dispenser is entitled, cceteris paribus, 
to professional profits, which are totally different and entirely 
distinct from the ordinary profits of a retail druggist. 
In applying the test, how is it that the open surgery and 
the apothecary’s shop were not visited, so that the charges 
of properly qualified medical men might be compared with ours, 
and how many physicians actually do give their advice ? Might 
they not be almost counted on the fingers ? Many profess to 
do so, but it is rather singular, to say the least about it, that 
they compel their free patients to go to one particular che¬ 
mist for their medicines. 
If the Globe and Traveller wishes to organize a new cru¬ 
sade, let it commence at the top of the tree—the medical pro¬ 
fession. Let it attack the physician who believes in “ an 
equal division of labour,” and also “ an equal division 
of profits j” let it attack the surgeon who keeps an “ open 
surgery,” and sells hair oil and toilet soap; let it attack 
that anomalous animal the apothecary, who is chemist, 
druggist, midwife and bleeding-barber roiled into one; let it 
attempt to put down the nest of herbalists, Coliinites, huck¬ 
sters, etc., who sap our very vitals. And let it also endeavour 
to teach the masses the different qualifications of the medical 
profession, so that if a person wishes medical advice he may 
go to a physician; if he requires his leg or arm amputating, 
he will go to a surgeon; if his wife be in labour, he will fetch 
the apothecary; and if he require medicine, he will go to a dis¬ 
pensing chemist. There is surely scope enough here for even 
such a “ Traveller ” as the “ Globe,” though he may travel in 
such a limited circle as not to know that dispensing chemists 
require to be examined; and then what a pleasure it is to 
possess a friend who is such a “ competent authority ” as to 
estimate articles at twice their actual cost! 
In conclusion, I can assure the writer of the article that 
notwithstanding the “ excessive profits,” the chem so does not 
spend his life on a bed of rosse fol.; many of us have great 
difficulty, and have to exercise great self-denial to enable us 
to pull through. The gratuitous insults wh'cli the Globe 
thinks fit to throw in are perhaps the result of New Year 
festivities—the toughness of the turkey, the plum-pudding 
being just a little “ sticky,” or the presence of mother-in-law 
may have deranged his digestive organs, and caused him to 
be splenetic. May I with all due deference prescriue a few 
doses of pepsin, and then hint that in a few years I hope to 
see the dispensing of medicines entirely m the hands of the 
chemist, and the present prices considerably augmented. 
T. C. 
Sir,—Truly we are the best abused race of people in exist¬ 
ence. It is only a short time since the leading medical 
journal very kindly and very considerately called us, without 
rhyme or reason, “ malefactors.” The Pall Hall Gazette, 
that aristocratic journal, written essentially “ by gentlemen 
for gentlemen,” “improved the occasion” by adding “itwas 
high time a chemist was hanged” (pour encourager les 
ciutres, I suppose). The Globe being in want of something 
approaching a Christmas sensational article, and probably 
taking its cue from the Times article on “ Spiritualism and 
Science,” suddenly finds out that our charges are “ excessive ;” 
that we “impose” on our “victims,” the general public, and 
“ render abortive the gratuitous prescribing of medical men.” 
The writer, in common with many of his class, will persist in 
confounding the “druggist ” pur et simple, who is merely a 
retail tradesman, who buys goods for so much and sells them 
Sheffield, January 10 th, 1873. 
Payment of Local Seceetaeies. 
Sir,—I quite agree with the remarks of your correspon¬ 
dent Mr. Nathaniel Smith relative to the remuneration of 
local secretaries, and am also firmly persuaded he is express¬ 
ing the views and feelings of the majority of those gentlemen 
wfio have hitherto acted, or are at present acting, in that 
capacity. If not positively insulting, it is, at any late, pay¬ 
ing but a poor compliment to their generosity and disinterest¬ 
edness, to seek to rob the office of its honoiary character by 
attaching to it either a meagre stipend or a paltry honorarium. 
We are becoming utilitarian with, a vengeance, and ail our 
better impulses will soon be utterly degraded, if every act of 
generosity and self-abnegation are to be made objects of 
pecuniary gain. To the major part, “ the hono.ir of the 
