April 26, 1873.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
859 
the founders, for whilst, at any rate, I honour them for 
their self-denial, I only differ concerning the wisdom of 
the use to which they applied their contributions. 
The argument in the next clause is somewhat absurd; 
for if facts prove that the present system has proved 
favourable to this locality, they will equally show that my 
system would have answered just by that much the more 
favourably to other localities. # . . 
In the last paragraph of “ Subscriber,” he insinuates 
that I am attacking the present Fund, with the design of 
taking away the property of present recipients. By no 
mens is this the case ; my aim is solely to prevent the con¬ 
tinual increase of a fund already somewhat unwieldy. 
In conclusion, I trust that with a little forbearance on 
both sides, much good will accrue to the Fund by the sharp 
discussions concerning its best use. 
Walter B. Clark. 
Leicester, April 19th, 1873. 
Sir,—With others, my thoughts have been directed to 
the above question. I cannot agree with all Mr. Clark’s 
views, or fully [realize Mr. Sandford’s reply. The im¬ 
pression given by Mr. Sandford is that all applicants have 
been elected or relieved. 
If my memory serves me correctly, before the election 
takes place, the Council makes a selection and recommends 
four or five candidates they believe most worthy of relief. 
Two are elected, two or three are unsuccessful; perhaps 
these receive a small grant each. In addition, there are the 
other applicants from which the Council made their selection, 
—what becomes of them? Do they each receive a small 
grant ? Are they one and all a sort of unrecognized an¬ 
nuitants of a second scale, waiting their turn to be elected 
to the recognized permanent list ? _ 
The permanent fund has now increased sufficiently for 
a more liberal course being adopted. Five or even six 
annuitants might be elected annually at an annuity of 
£40 instead of £30, and yet leave a surplus.^ 
I do not think the permanent fund is sufficiently large to 
discontinue any further increase, but would like to see it 
increased for some years. 
J. B. B. gives the annual subscriptions at £900 in round 
numbers; let 10 per cent, of this be added, with all life 
subscriptions, legacies, and donations, to the permanent 
fund. By this means more present help would be given 
to the necessitous; the permanent fund still increasing, 
and when sufficiently large, any surplus funds might go to 
form an orphanage or some other charitable institution. 
I have been tempted more than once to withdraw my 
subscription from the Society and give it to one. of the 
unsuccessful candidates, but have not done so, seeing that 
our management is economical. . . 
The income, according to J. B. B., arising from £13,000 
is very small: other benevolent societies invest in ground 
rents, or place the money on mortgage and receive 5^ per 
cent, on their capital. T. J. W. 1. 
Tinctura Aurantii Recentis. 
Sir,—With regard to Dr. Symes’s remarks on this prepa¬ 
ration at page 821 in your last issue, I beg to state that .1 
did not claim to be the originator of the idea of making it 
with the fresh peel, but I first suggested its introduction 
into the Pharmacopoeia (see Pharm. Journ., Yol. XI., 
2 ser., p. 604). 
Wm. Martindale. 
University College Hospital, April 23rd, 1873. 
[*** Dr. Symes appears to have overlooked the fact that 
the discussion he criticized had exclusively reference to the 
introduction of certain preparations into the Pharmacopoeia 
Appendix. Mr. Martindale s remarks on tinct. aurant. rec. 
are obviously to be understood in that sense, and not as 
indicating that this preparation is any novelty. Ed. 
Pharm. Journ.] 
Pharmacy in Ireland. 
Sir,—Having been personally engaged in the practice of 
pharmacy in Ireland for several years back, I have read 
with considerable interest the communications of your cor¬ 
respondents Messrs. Alex. Anderson and J.T. Holmes on 
that subject; and as the statements set forth by the former 
gentleman are very much what I have found to be fact, I 
cannot refrain from writing a few lines, not only in support 
of those statements, but also by way of reply to Mr. Holmes’s 
letter in your issue of the 19th instant. Not that I judge 
Mr. Anderson incompetent to reply on his own account, 
but writing as I do from the midst of Irish pharmacy, my 
facilities for acquiring a correct knowledge of matters must 
be greater than his can be, writing as he does from the 
opposite side of the channel. That a great amount of mis¬ 
understanding does exist in the minds of English chemists 
with regard to the position occupied by chemists and drug¬ 
gists in Ireland is a fact beyond dispute, and one which I 
have experienced over and over again while conversing with 
chemists on the sister island; but an explanation of it is 
not far to be looked for, if we do not descend to the puerile 
interpretations of Mr. Holmes about social position, but 
hold to the matter of their position as plicmnacists, which 
i 5 evidently that meant by Mr. Anderson. Now the che¬ 
mist and druggist of Great Britain has until very recently 
been allowed to pursue the duties of his calling as dispenser 
of physicians’ and surgeons’ prescriptions without any legal 
interference, much in the same manner as any ordinary 
tradesman, and he seems to have formed the impression (on 
what grounds it is not my present business to show) that 
the present chemist and druggist in Ireland is now much in 
the same position that he himself was previous to the pass¬ 
ing of the Pharmacy Act. Now this is quite a mistake, and 
it is here the misunderstanding exists, for the Irish Apo¬ 
thecaries’ Company has been a legally-constituted body for 
many years, having received its first act of incorporation in 
1791. It possesses the power to enforce examinations, and 
of course prohibits all persons from entering the practice of 
pharmacy (that is, to keep open shop) until they have first 
obtained a diploma of competency from their Society. 
Such being the case, we have two sets of pharmacists in 
Ireland, if, indeed, the second can justly be called by that 
name at all; the first, being the licentiates of the Apothe¬ 
caries’ Hall,* * “ are the only persons who can legally keep a, 
shop for the compounding and vending of medicines, and 
are the only practitioners in Ireland who can recover for 
medicines prescribed by themselves or furnished on the 
prescriptions of others.” The second is a class of persons 
who keep open shop for the wholesale or retail only of 
drugs, having no legal authority to dispense a single pre¬ 
scription. This is evidently the class referred to by Mr. 
Anderson, when he states that much misunderstanding 
exists in England regarding their position; and I believe 
it to be also the class referred to by Mr. Holmes, when tie 
states that they are fully as competent as their English 
brethren. May I be allowed to ask from whence do they 
attain to this competency, since they have never been 
trained to the most important part of a pharmacist’s duty, 
namely, the correct dispensing of a physician s prescrip¬ 
tion. Mr. Anderson states that the Irish apothecary is the 
Irish pharmacist proper. Such is fact, beyond doubt; and 
if Mr. Holmes will look into his extract given of Mr. An¬ 
derson’s letter, ho will find that the statement he makes 
and that made by Mr. Anderson are entirely different, and 
that such a class of pharmacists does exist as Mr. Anderson 
states, namely, licentiates of the Apothecaries Hall, who, 
having recognized the fact that the practice of medicine and 
that of pharmacy ought to be vested in separate indivi¬ 
duals, have accordingly given up the former (which they 
legally possess) and devoted themselves to the latter, i 
can assure Mr. Holmes is no fallacy, and am prepared to 
give him the names of at least four such within a circuit ot 
half a mile from where I now write, and that in one of the 
largest and most flourishing towns in Ireland; and such 
will be found to be no petty shopkeepers. 
I trust your readers will now comprehend a little more 
clearly the position of the chemist and druggist in Ireland 
(not the licentiate apothecary), when they will, be able to 
judge for themselves with what amount of justice Mr. 
Holmes founds his claim that they, as a body, should, on a. 
nominal examination, be admitted to the privileges that 
have been the just and legal right of the apothecary for 
upwards of eighty years, and to gam which he has had to 
expend no small amount of his time and money. buch 
would seem to us to be indeed ‘ injustice to Ireland. And 
of one thing we feel confident, namely, that the Pharma- 
* See ‘ Digest of History and Legal Rights of the Irish 
Apothecary,’ published with list of members. 
