August 6,1870.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
119 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs for review , 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
*$* JS r o notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authen¬ 
ticated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
“Rule op Thumb.” 
Sir,—“Anti-Humbug” has written a very harum-scarum 
letter upon the above subject. Now, accuracy cannot be 
humbug. If a pharmacist has certain ingredients ordered to 
be divided into twelve equal parts, it is his sole duty to know 
that each part is an equal division, independent of inertness 
or activity of the medicine. He cannot know if he trusts to 
a fallible organ, like the eye. Really there is such a thing to 
be observed in dispensing medicines as conscientiousness, and 
it is also a fact, that the Pharmacopoeia recognizes “ dose.” 
Rifle-shooting and carpentering are scarcely such delicate 
matters as the correct administration of a dose of calomel. 
Yours, etc., 
Minor Associate. 
July 30,1870. 
Sir,—I confess I was somewhat surprised to find, upon 
looking down the correspondence column of the last issue of the 
‘Pharmaceutical Journal,’ that there was any gentleman 
who could so unmistakably advocate such a dangerous method 
as “measurement” by “rule of thumb.” Apart from con¬ 
sidering the arguments of your correspondent in support of 
his views, I cannot help thinking that there is a principle in- 
volved in the question upon which it is very desirable we 
should have a clear understanding. 
In these times of examination, when so important a part 
of our curriculum is devoted to determining the student’s 
capacity for correctly ascertaining the amount of active in¬ 
gredient contained in each dose of medicine prescribed; I 
think that, to allow the exhibition of such a principle as that 
contained in your correspondent’s letter to pass unchallenged, 
is to commit an error, the gravity of which cannot be too 
fully estimated. 
It may possibly be in the power of “Anti-Humbug” in 
dispensing accurately to measure his medicines by “ rule of 
thumb,” but is it correct that such a method should be openly 
recommended; for I cannot see that he lays down any rule 
by which we are to decide upon the fitness, or otherwise, of 
our young members to practise this acquirement P 
Of the danger of allowing young and unpractised dis¬ 
pensers to proceed by “ rule Of thumb,” it is, I trust, needless 
to speak P Is it, therefore, dangerous to allow opinions such 
as these to pass current in our official organ; for it is appa¬ 
rent they may have a doubtful, if not a decidedly injurious 
effect upon the minds of those who, by reason of them in¬ 
experience, are so prone to imbibe erroneous ideas ? 
Hoping that this may not be considered an unwarrantable 
encroachment upon your valuable space, 
I remain, yours truly, 
E. R. L. 
Bath, August 1, 1870. 
Trade Grievances. 
Sir,—May I beg your indulgence for a small space in your 
Journal, for a few remarks on what are popularly called 
trade grievances ? In almost every number of your Journal 
is a mass of correspondence, chiefly bewailing our unfortunate 
lot, and suggesting numerous and various remedies; but as 
yet I am not aware they have been followed by any practical 
benefit, and, hi my humble opinion, if the following sug¬ 
gestions had not, by a strange oversight, been forgotten in 
framing our new Act, we should have very rapidly advanced 
from our present position of tradesmen to our true status of 
professional men; our pecuniary affairs, of course, advancing 
in the same ratio. 
The first grievance is one that has heen well ventilated in 
your columns, namely, Counter Prescribing versus The Dis¬ 
pensing of Medicines by Surgeons. I would stringently re¬ 
strain druggists from supplying all but the most simple medi¬ 
cines, except on the written authority of a medical man, and, 
on the other hand, would insist on that anomalous animal— 
a general practitioner, being forbidden, under heavy penalties, 
from dispensing his own medicines. I advocate the abolition 
of counter prescribing, although, myself, I do a large practice 
in it, because I consider it to be the root of all dissensions 
between ourselves and the medical fraternity. England 
proudly considering herself the first in the march of civiliza¬ 
tion and science, is, after considerable advances, still wofully 
behind her Continental neighbours in the matter of medical 
and Pharmaceutical reform. Why have we need of so many 
classes of medical men ? From experience in five Continental 
countries I cannot see the necessity. If a “ doctor ” to pre¬ 
scribe, and a “ phannacien ” to dispense, are all that are re¬ 
quired in France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, 
why must we be saddled with apothecaries, surgeons, etc.,— 
mongrel compounds of druggists and physicians ? Perhaps 
this clause was not inserted, because the Council did not 
think it politic to grasp too much at commencement, and it 
is standing over to a more favourable period,—at least I sin¬ 
cerely hope so. 
The other grievance is the sad inroad made into our busi¬ 
ness and reputation by the piratical crew of small shop¬ 
keepers, herbalists, quacks, anti-vaccinators, Coffinitcs, etc., 
who infest us as maggots do cheese, especially in large manu¬ 
facturing towns, where in any but the principal thorough¬ 
fares every tenth house will sell castor oil, sweet nitre, 
herbs, pills, powders, et hoc genus omne, and who thus take 
away a great part of our legitimate business, and get us into 
such disrepute with coroners’ juries. The remedy for this is 
very simple, and I was astounded when the new Act came 
into operation, without a word on this head. I would merely 
add bodily to our Act the 6th Article of the French Code, 
which I translate verbatim, for the benefit of such of j r our 
readers as may not have seen it. 
“Art. YI. It is forbidden for all grocers, and all other per¬ 
sons, to make, sell, or keep in stock any salts, composition, or 
preparations, entering into the human body in the form of 
medicines, or to make any mixture of simple drugs, for ad¬ 
ministering in form of medicine, under a penalty ot £20, or 
more if requisite.” This clause is beautifully clear and de¬ 
cisive, and if fortunately it had been incorporated in our own 
Act, we should have been relieved from these parasites, who 
at present, if they only steer clear of poison, may sell (or 
rather undersell) their cheap, adulterated drugs, under the 
very nose of a Pharmaceutical Chemist, who has had heavy 
demands on his time and money, in order to qualify him to 
open a shop. 
These then, are, in my opinion, the only stumbling-blocks 
on the road to advancement, and if the Council will only give 
them the consideration they duly deserve, we may,, at some 
future time, relieve ourselves of the trammels of paints, oils, 
and colours, and rise to something higher than “ the druggist 
round the corner.” 
Although very dissimilar to the above, yet intimately con¬ 
nected with it, is your leader in last number of the Journal, 
in which the writer takes it for granted that the new mem¬ 
bers have been elected from the provinces merely in opposi¬ 
tion to London members, without due regard to merit, or 
long and valued services. This is not so; a London chemist 
has not the slightest idea what a country drug business, is 
like, or what are the requirements of a country druggist. 
The former Council, in effect, chiefly composed of Londoners, 
would insist on looking at us from a distance through the 
rose-coloured glasses of money-coining West-End establish¬ 
ments, and, wishing to elevate us too rapidly on a level with 
themselves, have done us considerable injury, chiefly by neg¬ 
lecting any attempt to rectify the above grievances; this 
neglect, we are glad to admit, has not been from unwillingness 
to assist us, but merely from insufficient knowledge on the 
subject, and as we provincials form the great body of the 
Society, pressure was brought to bear on country members to 
ensure the new Council having the proper proportion of pro¬ 
vincial representatives it was entitled to. 
Apologizing for trespassing so much on your valuable space, 
I remain, yours faithfully, 
A Country M. P. S. 
Pharmacist, or Pharmaceutical Chemist ? 
Sir,—On the eve of another Pharmaceutical Conference, 
allow me, through the medium of the J ournal, to draw the 
attention of Pharmaceutical Chemists to the desirability of 
adopting (as a body) the title of “Pharmacist” or “Phar¬ 
maceutist” in preference to that of “Pharmaceutical Che¬ 
mist.” 
We very seldom find the title of Pharmaceutical Chemist 
used by the public, either in verbal or written communica- 
