620 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS 
[February 1,13'3„ 
up to the mark in observance of the necessary regulations of 
the Poisons Act, and in some instances have attempted to go 
beyond what the law allows; the public also back them up in 
censuring any laxity on the part of a privileged part of the 
community like ourselves, consequently it behoves us to show 
by our careful manner of dealiug with poisons that it is a 
gain to the community to have an educated, well-regulated 
body of chemists to store and distribute such articles when 
required. 
James Slifper. 
JLondon, January 28 th, 1873. 
Sir,—I am sure many will agree with your correspondent, 
Mr. J. W. Longley, in the Journal of January 25th, respect¬ 
ing the registering of the sale of vermin killers in the poison 
book. I lor one do, being quite ignorant of the obligation so 
to do, until i*eading the correspondence in the last issue of the 
Journal and your editorial note in that of the 18th ultimo. 
In the latter you say, the Council of the Pharmaceutical 
Society resolved that a copy of the revised regulations should 
be issued to every registered chemist and druggist, but the 
copies have not reached this neighbourhood yet, and any 
detective might have pounced down upon us innocent, loyal 
creatures, by sending his son into the shop to purchase vermin 
poison, and while I was ignorant of the new interpretations of 
the law, might have brought me under the censure and repri¬ 
mand of the coroner, though undeservedly. The plea of 
ignorance in this respect would surely have met with justice 
at the hands of the magistrates, but as to any intelligent 
member of the trade supposing that Battle’s or other “ killers ” 
do not contain strychnine, or some poison, to me seems in¬ 
credible. 
¥m. T. Martin. 
Jetves , January 28th, 1873. 
Total Abolition oe the Medicine Licence to 
Druggists. 
Sir,—I read with much interest your minute and able 
resume of the last page and year of our pharmaceutical 
history; it necessarily took notice of many pomts of a de¬ 
batable character, which, though not yet settled, have given 
rise to discussions well calculated to ventilate matters of the 
first importance as regards our future welfare and progress 
as a body. At present I have no intention to take note of 
many subjects of major importance, which I doubt not will 
again be taken up by the stimulus which your own article 
has given to them. In the meantime, just allow me to refer 
to a comparatively small matter, but which, small as it is, 
I humbly think has not yet received that amount of consi¬ 
deration from you or from your correspondents which it 
properly deserves. I refer to the proposed change in. the 
charge for licence duty for the retailing of patent medicines. 
On that point I cannot agree with you, that ££ the balance of 
opinion is inclined to a uniform rate of £2.” In the metro¬ 
polis and in large provincial towns such an alteration might 
be of advantage to the properly qualified chemist, but in 
country towns, properly so-called, and in villages which can 
boast of a professional pharmacist, the case would be quite 
different, as in such places the sale of ££ patents” is not at all 
confined to our fraternity, but is largely shared in by grocers 
and ironmongers, and booksellers and the like, who, indulg¬ 
ing in the maxim of ££ small profits and quick returns,” do 
not hesitate to act upon it, by selling ££ quack medicines ” 
of all sorts and conditions—poisonous or non-poisonous—at 
a reduction of three-halfpence upon every shilling, that is, 
selling Cockle’s Pills, etc., at Is. instead of Is. 1 \d. Now, I 
believe, as a rule, that the increase in the price of licence 
duty might put a stop to this “cutting” business, but I 
verily believe that it would never tend to the aggrandisement 
of the druggist, as if the advanced licence duty would pay 
the one, I see no reason why it should not pay the other, to 
continue the competition. 
But putting aside altogether the competitive part of the 
question, which alone has received consideration by your cor¬ 
respondents, I would just ask, firstly, why any but properly 
qualified chemists are allowed to vend the various, and in 
some cases the dangerous and poisonous, “ nostrums of the 
day ? ” and, secondly, why one should be called upon to pay 
any licence at all ? We have spent no end of time and money 
in receiving an extra liberal education; we have attended 
and paid for classes at the University or at Bloomsbui’y 
Square; we have passed the Preliminary, the Minor, and the 
Major examinations of the Society at great expense, ai.d we 
annually put a guinea into the pharmaceutical coffers,—and 
for what, I would like to know, have we done all this ? We 
have done it, I fear, just to be on an equal footing with our 
drug-selling neighbours, the grocers, who might and do sell 
nearly all the most profitable articles in the pharmacopoeia, 
to say nothing of the '“nostrums” referred to, or vermin 
killers, or “sheep-dipping compositions,” whether poisonous or 
not. In fact, in such matters, more especially in the country, 
the Pharmacy Act, or Sale of Poisons Bill, is to all intents 
and purposes a dead letter. 
But, referring again to the “patent medicine” duty, do 
you, Mr. Editor, not consider that we have already, by our 
education, and our examinations, and our fellowship with 
the Pharmaceutical Society, paid sufficient, and qualified our¬ 
selves sufficiently for the sale of Holloway’s Pills and Oint¬ 
ment, without paying any more in the shape of a licence ? I 
hold that the diploma of the Pharmaceutical Society of itself’ 
and hi 'perpetuity , ought to be a sufficient warrant without a 
compulsory payment of two pounds, or even twopence per 
annum. On the other hand, as we have been promised so- 
much increase of status (and status I consider of precious 
little value commercially, unless backed up by something 
more substantial), I venture to suggest that the privilege of 
selling drugs should no longer continue to be a marketable- 
commodity, purchasable by grocers, booksellers, or anybody 
that can afford to pay the money, but should be the exclusive 
right of druggists and druggists only; or if this sweeping 
measure might be found to endanger our national resources in 
the matter of revenue, then let there be a licence of five- 
guineas, to be paid by the cheesemonger aspirants to the drug 
business ; thus would we gain at least one of the advantages- 
so liberally promised to us; and so, the public, for the first 
time, would be made to see and to learn and to acknowledge,, 
that our education gave us a privileged right and qualifica¬ 
tion above our worthy neighbours in the cheese and book¬ 
selling line of business. 
January 8th, 1873. Scrutator, M. P. S. 
J. Morris. —(1) We have seen it stated that an extract 
made from the watery matter which oozes from the livers, 
has sometimes been used in the preparation of pills. It has 
also been proposed to use a cod-liver oil and lime soap for the 
purpose (Yol. II. p. 830). See a report of an action for the 
price of a box of “ Sir James Murray’s Concentrated Cod Liver 
Oil Pills,” printed in the first series of the Pharm. Journ., 
vol. NI. p. 478. (2) A formula for Tincture of Eucalyptus is- 
given at p. 618. 
K. T. F .—See Ure’s ‘ Dictionary of the Arts,’ s. v. “ Bread,” 
vol. i. p. 405. 
W. H. W. —You will find an article on the subject in Ure’s- 
‘Dictionary of the Arts,’ vol. i. p. 573. 
“ Labiaice .”—(1) You. are recommended to forward the 
certificate to the Secretary in order that he may lay it before 
the Board. (2) No. 
C. F. D .—The passages for the next examination may be- 
selected from any part of the De Hello G-allico ot Caesar. 
In succeeding examinations they will be taken from either ot 
the first three books of the JEneid. 
G-. J. C. —The only enclosure in your letter was the news¬ 
paper cutting. 
C. Fryer. —We regret that we are unable to comply with 
your request. 
J. Uamp. —Your letter has been handed to the Secretary 
who will forward you the information asked for. 
A. Stathers. —According to the interpretation of the Regu¬ 
lations adopted by the Council in regard to “ Vermin Killers/ 
it is necessary to register the sale of “ Battle’s Vermin 
Killer,” and otherwise to comply with the regulations relating 
to poisons comprised in the first part ot Schedule A, as 
specified in Schedule E, the details ot which are to be found 
in the Register or the Calendar of the Society. As to the 
quantity to be registered we are unable to give any informa¬ 
tion. 
The report of the Leeds Chemists’ Association reached tho 
office after the Journal was made up. 
We have to thank correspondents for supplying copies o 
the Brighton Examiner, Sussex Daily News, Melbourne Daily 
Telegraph, Northern Whig, Bradford Observer, Queen, Echo 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Messrs. J. H. H. Howard, F. H. Ellwood, Johnson, Barrett 
! Whitwell, W. V. Churchill J. Young, Heaton M. M. L- 
I “ Tolu.” 
