18 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
[July 2, 1870. 
the deplorable effect of depriving us of the valuable experi¬ 
ence and services of many old members of the Council. Surely 
no man can have a greater influence to bear upon him, in the 
handling of poisons, than his own material interest. 
As I have read in the Journal, from month to month, re¬ 
commendations and propositions for the keeping of poisons, 
with the view of legal compulsion, I have felt perfectly 
ashamed of my calling. My own system being, to my mind, 
infinitely superior to any proposition I have seen, still I could 
not presume to recommend it to others, as every chemist 
must be guided by the construction of his shop, and other 
considerations. 
I have hitherto forborne to make any comment upon the 
subject, believing it would all come to nothing, which the case 
now plainly shows. 
I shall, at any time, feel much pleasure in showing 'my 
method of keeping poisons to any chemist,—not as being any 
wonderful contrivance, but for the simplicity which common 
prudence dictates. Doubting not most other chemists have a 
place equally good, and many perhaps better, nevertheless I 
have faith in my own, and should repel any interference. 
If the Council will keep within their legitimate province, 
they will soon re-establish confidence, and, at the next elec¬ 
tion, have a due balance of experienced London members, 
who certainly are in the best position to render good service 
to the trade at large. 
I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
John Beaton. 
Kill urn, June 20 th, 1870. 
Dear Sir,—Will you kindly allow me to point out an error 
in the editorial article of the 15th instant ? You speak of the 
provinces as being “omniscient,” now that is just what they 
are not, and the desire for a greater amount of knowledge 
was the mainspring of their action in the matter of the elec¬ 
tion ; had they been allowed to knoio a little more, they might 
possibly have done a little less; and had the statement of 
attendance on Committees been published before the election 
instead of after, the gentleman who has attended forty-four 
times would have stood higher on the list than he did. Further, 
we find from that statement that four members of the Council, 
who live within “omnibus ride from Bloomsbury Square” 
have attended just ten times amongst them, so that proximity 
to the Council-room does not necessarily produce attendance 
there. 
Neither are we to be blamed for the “absence of names 
long held in reverence,” seeing that those names were not 
even on the list of candidates; had they been so, they would 
hardly have been rejected. Even in the provinces there is 
some respect for Morson, Squire, and Deane, who have worked 
so long and so well, and whose names are an honour to British 
pharmacy. 
Let us hope that the late storm will have the effect of clear¬ 
ing the atmosphere, and of bringing the Council and the 
members into better accord than has been the case for some 
time past, and there will then be no cause to regret our action 
in the matter. 
Yours truly, 
W. Wilkinson. 
Manchester, June 20, 1870. 
The Sale op Homoeopathic Medicines by Phae- 
macists. 
Sir,—It was not my intention to make any further remarks 
upon the above subject; but if you have no objection to carry 
the discussion into your new seines, I should feel obliged if 
you will permit me to reply to Mr. Giles’s second letter. 
In the first place, let me assure him that so far as I am con¬ 
cerned his letters havecaused no annoyance whatever, and I be¬ 
lieve he wrote them from a desire to benefit the trade generally. 
I think that the real cause of the traffic in homoeopathic 
medicines is to bo found not “ in the hardships under which 
pharmacy is often conducted,” but in the fact that the public 
demands them. If there are any who “feel it inexpressibly 
painful ” and “ a degradation to themselves and their calling ” 
to sell such medicines, to them are Mr. Giles’s remarks very 
well suited, even if their “ poverty and not their will consents.” 
but I believe there are very few, if any, who feel thus. 
Mr. Giles says, he did not represent the sale of homoeo¬ 
pathic medicines as a “ breach of trade honesty.” Surely he 
must have forgotten his former statements, or does ho desire 
to recall them, but knows not how to do so ? What does he 
mean when he says, “ They (the world) may possibly deduce 
another inference from this over-eagerness to make money all 
round, obviously in defiance of conscience and consistency; 
they may not unreasonably conclude that the pharmaceutist 
who humbugs one customer with his consent, may humbug 
the rest for his own profit, and that he who knowingly sells 
innocent sugar-plums for deadly aconite, may not scruple to 
sell cheap powdered slate for costly scammony” ? 
After such statements, I am surprised lie should deny that 
he represented the sale of the above medicines as a breach of 
trade honesty. Does he mean to assert that if a chemist is 
open to a suspicion of supplying slate for scammony, he is 
not also open to the imputation of a breach of trade honesty ? 
I maintain that if a chemist is suspected of selling slate for 
scammony, he may very reasonably be suspected of supply¬ 
ing rad. rhei ang. for rad. rhei E. I. elect., and if that is 
not “ a breach of trade honesty,” I should like to know what 
is ? 
Mr. Giles disowns Morrison’s pills, but acknowledges Parr’s 
pills “ct hoc genus omne,” and says that my argument is 
founded on an assumption. Well, Sir, I am agreeable to his 
substitution, or if he will, Perry Davis’s Pain-Killer, of which 
it may be said— 
“ It matters not a pin, 
Whether rubbed out or taken in, 
Its effect is just the same.” 
My argument will then he founded not on an assumption, 
but on an admitted fact. He further states that he has a 
considerable respect for patent medicines (mark, considerable 
respect). I never before heard a chemist make such a state¬ 
ment, and I am inclined to think that Mr. Giles stands alone 
in this respect. But I am still more astonished when he 
says, “ They are, at all events, based upon rational principles 
of therapeutics, such as pharmacy acknowledges.” The prin¬ 
ciples on which patent medicines, as a class, are based (so far 
as my knowledge goes), are that one medicine is a remedy, or 
more frequently a specific for various diseases and disorders, 
differing materially from each other, and that, too, entirely 
regardless of differences in constitution and sex. And I was 
not aware before, that pharmacy acknowledged such prin¬ 
ciples. 
If, however, such be the case, why do chemists adorn their 
shops with such a varied number of therapeutic agents when 
a few would answer the same purpose ? Such an array is 
useless if Mr. Giles’s statement is true. If he is inclined to 
dispute what I have said, I ask him to read a few of the 
many handbills that he receives from his wholesale house, 
and I think he will find that I have simply stated facts. With 
regard to the solution of camphor, it is undoubtedly an allo¬ 
pathic remedy; but it is only fair to state that homoeopathy 
has brought it into such general use. 
Again, with regard to Mr. Giles’s prediction of the dura¬ 
tion of homoeopathy, he says that, according to his observa¬ 
tion, it is already extinct as a form of medical practice. Mr. 
Giles has, I think, put his astrological telescope to the blind 
eye. I beg to inform him that “ as a form of medical prac¬ 
tice ” it is far from extinct, as the rapidly increasing number 
of homoeopathic physicians clearly shows. He says, too, that 
if left alone he “ sincerely believes the present generation will 
outlive it.” I suppose he means if left alone by chemists. 
Well, Sir, if it is left alone, I sincerely wish Mr. Giles a long 
life and a happy one. I quite agree with Mr. Swenden, when 
he says, “ One thing is certain, that if homoeopathy be destined 
to advance, and it certainly is gaining ground, the united 
opposition of the whole of the pharmacists in the country 
could not check it, for the motive of our opposition would be 
too apparent.” 
Mr. Giles is pleased to term homoeopathy 11 arrant folly,” 
ergo, those who believe in it are arrant fools! including, of 
course, homoeopathic M.D.’s. Eeally, how very compli¬ 
mentary we are! Permit me to remind him that homoeo¬ 
pathic M.D.’s have to go through the same curriculum as 
allopathic M.D.’s before they can practise homoeopathy. 
Again, he says, “Homoeopathic practitioners do not now 
trust to homoeopathic doses, etc.; they do not themselves use 
those absurd globules,” etc. Here again, I think, Mr. Giles’s 
observation is somewhat limited. Only very recently I asked 
a medical gentleman if he thought that pilules and globules 
were rarely if ever prescribed ? and he replied, that he thought 
they were used quite as much as formerly, and I know he 
uses them largely himself. 
In conclusion, permit me to remark, that I am as desirous 
