October 1, 1870-3 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
279 
The Bbighton Chemists’ Association. 
Sir,—Your correspondent “ Veritas” is entitled to know that 
this Association was formed some years ago, and actively pro¬ 
moted by a few of the old members of the trade; but by 
reason of the apathy of the younger branches,—the meetings 
became stereotyped,—the same half-dozen gentlemen meeting 
month after month without any additition to their numbers; 
and, although the trade subscribed readily to meet current 
expenses, they failed by their absence to give the necessary 
impetus to secure success, the consequence was the meetings 
took place at longer intervals, and at last ceased altogether, 
until last month, when as there seemed a probability of the 
British Association visiting the town and with it the Phar¬ 
maceutical Conference, a meeting was called to consider the 
subject and to appoint another Secretary in the place of our 
much-esteemed friend Mr. Gwatkin, who resigned from ill- 
health. Mr. Julius Schweitzer was appointed Secretai*y, 
whilst our Mayor, Mr. Cox and myself were appointed to re¬ 
present the trade (as duly convened by circular) at the Con¬ 
ference. The necessary qualification to become associated 
with the trade and an infusion of younger blood into the As¬ 
sociation, are favourable circumstances to reinvigorate the 
institution, and as there is a fund to begin with, the young 
men should now avail themselves of the opportunity of 
arousing the latent energies of their compeers, and I am quite 
certain of this, that their older brethren will not shrink from 
any exertions to aid them. I am, Sir, yours, 
W. D. Savage. 
Druggists’ Prices. 
Sir,—The Lancet pursues a self-constituted censorship of 
pharmaceutical affairs. We are informed that “one great 
objection to practitioners handing over the dispensing of 
their medicines to chemists is to be found in the high prices 
charged by chemists for medicines,” and also that “ the dis¬ 
pensing of an ordinary prescription easily costs 2s. 6d. or 3s.” 
Our profits are said to be “monstrously excessive.” Let us 
look into the matter. In the first place, I may safely say that 
mixtures are more generally dispensed for Is. 6d. and Is. 8 d. 
than for Is. 8 d. and 2s.; certainly for less in the provinces. 
A dozen doses of pills may be had for 6d. or 8 d., and medi¬ 
cine enough for a fortnight at an outlay of 2s. Qd. to 3s. In 
saying that the chemist is “paid at once over the counter” 
the Lancet makes a random assertion. The generality of 
druggists do a large booking trade, and allow their customers 
to run accounts, not from choice but of necessity. 
It appears that in one town the medical men gave up dis¬ 
pensing. Mark the effect of that act! The druggists have 
become familiar with prescriptions,—had they seen so little 
of those ungrammatical productions before ?—and now they 
feel pulses, even those of affluent ladies, before the very eyes 
of the doctors themselves. What audacity, what effrontery! 
Here, indeed, is a heavy indictment; here the head and front 
of our offending. A doctor, finding himself forestalled by a 
druggist, who had told a lady that she had a weak pulse, evi¬ 
dently feels poignantly upon the subject, for he rushes into 
print, and declares that “ this kind of thing must be put a 
stop to.” 
Here are two charges to meet. We are excessive in our 
charges, and we meddle with the practice of medicine. I say 
that our prices are not exorbitant, that they are perfectly 
legitimate, and in no way more than due return for our 
labour and time, especially in the face of the qualifications 
which are now to be required of those practising pharmacy. 
It is an egregious error to imagine that chemists will lower 
their charges to suit the fancy of the medical practitioner, 
so that he may obtain full remuneration, whilst the druggist 
is left to compound medicines at a maximum of trouble and 
a minimum of profit. 
And as to prescribing, what is to be said ? Are not the 
public their own masters ? They come of their own accord 
to us for advice, they are perfectly aware of our status. They 
do not choose to call in a doctor for every minute ailment, 
every spasm or ache. We render them what service we can, 
and I think it may be truly said that we do not interfere with 
difficult and urgent cases. I have heard it frequently said 
that the doctor, once called in is, like some parasites, very 
difficult to get rid of ; and I have known many who, after 
vainly hinting to their medical adviser that his persistent 
visits were superfluous, have been compelled to give him an 
outspoken dismissal. This is a reason why we are often con¬ 
sulted. We force physic down no one’s throat. 
It would be better for the Lancet to be a little less partial 
to its own order, for it might then discern medical short¬ 
comings and abuses more clearly than it now appears to do. 
It has taken upon itself the unenviable task of attacking 
chemists and druggists, and in doing so has employed lan¬ 
guage and epithets of a most offensive character. We leave 
our case to the discrimination of the public in perfect confi¬ 
dence, assured that they will not cavil at a body of hard¬ 
working and painstaking men. Whether the Lancet's stric¬ 
tures have been composed in a fit of jealousy or hate)I neither 
know nor care, but to the writer I may say,— 
“ Of your antipathy 
If I am the Narcissus, you are free 
To pine into a sound with hating me.” 
Yours truly 
Minoe Associate. 
Phakmacists and Medical Peactitioners. 
Sir,— Quelle horreur! to think that a common, vulgar 
druggist should have the impudence to come “betwixt the 
wind and the nobility ” of a medical man! Sit in the same 
room, forsooth, certainly not! We who, after heavily feeing a 
grinder, have passed with difficulty the “ Hall,” and subse¬ 
quently received a diploma from the “College,”—shall the 
“elect” associate with the vulgar herd of pharmaceutists 
who have really passed a stringent examination ? Never! 
The idea of a professional man, a gentleman, at a public 
exhibition coming in contact with a shopkeeper! Faugh! 
The smell of foenugrec, cubebs, assafoetida would be over¬ 
powering. Heally, it is too absurd to be entertained for a 
moment! 
Malefactors! oh, the polish, the culture, the amenities of 
modem journalism! If the editor of the Lancet will refer to 
the police reports, he will soon discover who are the real 
malefactors. He may possibly find half-a-dozen unfortunate 
druggists who have caused death by accident or sheer care¬ 
lessness, but he will find a vast number of cases where bond 
fide medical men have been found guilty of criminal prac¬ 
tices. There is a wide difference between a druggist who 
causes the death of a child by selling its mother a penny¬ 
worth of Godfrey, and the man with a diploma, who de¬ 
votes the chief part of his attention to a vile practice which 
eventually lands him in the hulks. There are very few of 
the former, unfortunately for society very many of the latter. 
Who is it that defile our newspapers by inserting disgusting 
advertisements ? Medical men, who may have received di¬ 
plomas in England, America, Germany, but still medical 
men. I am not aware that I ever saw a specimen of this ob¬ 
scenity with the name of a pharmaceutist attached. 
If a child die by the carelessness of a druggist there is an 
inquest, and the druggist generally gets severely reprimanded 
by the coroner, if nothing worse; but how many mistakes are 
made by medical men which never come to light ? In the latter 
case it is “hum! ha!” “unfavourable symptoms set in,” 
“death,” “certificate,” “fee pocketed,” and there it ends. 
Who, then, is the malefactor here ? 
Can the editor of the Lancet see nothing reprehensible in 
the “reciprocity treaties” now so much in vogue, where the 
physician compels his patient to go to a particular druggist, 
the two worthies subsequently dividing the spoil ? Both are 
utterly despicable, but as the proposition invariably comes 
from the medical man he is therefore the most to blame. Con¬ 
firmatory evidence of this is given in the current number of 
the journal in an advertisement emanating from an M.D. 
According to the Lancet, then, a general practitioner (a 
fusion of doctor and druggist, forcibly reminding one of Bar- 
num’s celebrated mermaid, half monkey, half codfish) is a 
gentleman; but nevertheless he is not too much of a gentle¬ 
man, not too proud, to take the bread out of the mouth of 
the poor druggist he so much despises, by retailing his medi¬ 
cines. Why does he, then, if he really be a professional man 
and a gentleman, play at keeping shop, dishonestly cheating 
the druggist out of the most profitable part of his business ? 
Would it not be better if the editor of the Lancet were to 
employ his literary talents in endeavouring to reclaim his 
erring brethren to the path of rectitude instead of casting 
aspersions on men who are in respect of education and posi¬ 
tion fully his equals, and who, as a class, not nearly so crimi¬ 
nally-disposed as his own body ? Yours obediently, 
A Country M.P.S. 
Sir,—“Non-Malefactor” appears little to understand his 
own interest or position, and still less that of medical men. 
