October 15, 1870.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
319 
past), who receive no extra pay for thus keeping another 
officer out. 
In conclusion, I beg to call your attention to the terms 
offered to any young man anxious for “ service .” He must 
submit himself to the Civil Service Commissioners for exami¬ 
nation, and to a duly appointed person for examination in 
pharmacy, and to two or three medical men as to bodily 
health; and after, perhaps, three months waiting, he is ap¬ 
pointed, and will receive £57 per annum, reaching to £72 in 
ten years, with an allowance of 2s. per week for lodging, and 
7s. per week for board in lieu of living in the prison; and for 
the better information of the public, they mark you as an 
atom of the broad arrow, by clothing you in blue and brass 
buttons. There being no chance of promotion, as in the army 
and navy, where more are employed, could they not honour 
us with the title of Dispenser ? 
I am yours, etc. 
Farlchurst Frison. Beoad Aeeow. 
“ Extea Chaeges aetee oe beeoee Business Houks.” 
Sir,—The question as to the advisability of making extra 
charges on anything purchased after or before business hours, 
is one which ought to be more generally considered, and many 
will be glad to see that the subject has been started in the 
Journal by your correspondent Mr. Jessop. 
The idea has often occurred to me that an extra charge of 
at least 25 per cent, should be exacted on the articles pro¬ 
cured from chemists’ establishments on Sundays or after 
hours on the other days of the week. 
I think if the subject were fairly laid before the public they 
would see the justice of such action, for those who really 
need medicine at such times would not object to an additional 
charge; whereas others who come at such hours not urgently 
requiring physic, should be made pay for the needless trouble 
and labour they give. 
I am, Sir, yours obediently, 
Kappa. 
Sir,—It was with much pleasure that I saw in your last 
impression a letter on “ extra charges after business hours.” 
It is the custom here, and I believe our rule is not an excep¬ 
tional one, to charge half-a-crown if called up after eleven at 
night or early in the morning; and this has effectually put a 
stop to what otherwise might have become an intolerable 
nuisance. 
That a man should have to leave his warm bed to supply, 
at the usual prices, “ antibilious pills,” paregoric, soda water, 
or any other such article, to people who only consult their 
own convenience in the matter, is, I think, positively humi¬ 
liating to those who passively submit to it. 
This subject reminds me of another which I should like to 
see reformed, viz. “ Sunday trading.” I think most of my con¬ 
freres will agree with me, that a great proportion of the articles 
sold on Sundays are either absolutely unnecessary, or might, 
by the exercise of a little foresight, have been obtained on 
the preceding Saturday night. I am of opinion that it would 
be well if chemists were to charge, say, 25 per cent, on every 
article so supplied; and such extra charge would, I hope, 
be devoted, in the majority of cases, to our “Benevolent 
Fund.” 
Let us all strive to make Sunday, as far as possible, what it 
should be, a day of rest. 
I remain, yours respectfully, 
Sept. 2 Wh, 1870. T. H. P. 
Hospital Dispensing. 
Sir,—Allow me to correct a misapprehension existing on 
the part of Mr. Edward Barber, a hospital dispenser of six¬ 
teen years’ standing, as to the purport of my recent note. I 
distinctly drew attention to the mode in which the prescrip¬ 
tion was dispensed, and made no attack upon the use of pri¬ 
vate formulaj or quality of the drugs supplied. The sneer 
conveyed in his remark, “ a patient’s greasy card,” is not per¬ 
tinent, for this was a freshly-written prescription. I also 
remind Mr. Barber that it is nonsense to offer a puzzle of 
professional ciphers in his postscript, as he had previously in¬ 
formed your readers “the prescriber knows very well that it 
is intended only for his own dispenser, and that he will 
understand it.” 
In conclusion, I repeat my conviction that the law to be 
equitable must eventually place the storing and retailing 
poisons, as well as matters relating to pharmacy and dis¬ 
pensing, whether conducted by the surgeon, charity or dis¬ 
pensing chemist, under the control of the Pharmaceutical 
Council, freely and indifferently elected by its own consti¬ 
tuents. 
Robeet Owen Fitch. 
Well Street, South HacTcney, 
September 9th, 1870. 
Dear Sir,—The letter of a “Pharmacist” is certainly not 
one of the most complimentary to those whose duty it is to 
dispense the medicine prescribed by the physicians of public 
hospitals and dispensatories. 
In the first place, I will thank “Pharmacist” to explain 
what he means by an “average type of hospital dispensing ” 
or his “ waste of public money.” Let him ask himself whe¬ 
ther if the authorities of these benevolent institutions thought 
it a waste of money, they would keep it on ? In respect to 
the labelling of the medicines, “Pharmacist” must not take 
St. Bartholomew’s as a pattern. He must understand that 
every hospital or dispensary standing upon its own basis has 
its own way of doing things. 
I think I may safely say that nine out of ten dispensers 
would take the trouble to stick the labels on the bottles, and 
also to adjust the corks in a more decent and proper manner. 
Perhaps if the details of the case that “Pharmacist” men¬ 
tions came to be thoroughly sifted, only about a fourth part of 
that which “Pharmacist” asserts would be found to have 
really taken place, and that there was no necessity for putting 
him to the trouble of discerning between a mixture and a 
gargle. 
Ebenezee S. 
London , September 28 th. 
PHAEMACEUTICAL TITLES. 
Dear Sir,—I passed the “ Minor ” the latter part of last 
Session, and at that time had no intention of attempting the 
“ Major,” for the simple reason, I thought the title “ Phar¬ 
maceutical Chemist ” scarcely worth the trouble to obtain it. 
Seeing some of your readers are agitating on “ Pharmaceutical 
Titles,” and feeling sure the Council will help us in the 
matter, I have changed my plans, now purpose becoming an 
“ Aspirant for the Major,” and hope to have the pleasure of 
chatting over the subject with the gentlemen who have written 
under that name, during the coming session at Bloomsbury 
Square. 
I think “Omega” in his letter of the 17th instant is 
scarcely going the nearest way to promote reform; grumbling 
at what has been done is certainly not the best course to 
pursue, nor do I think he shows his “brotherly love” in en¬ 
deavouring to ridicule the diplomas of a Society to which he 
pays an annual subscription. 
Hoping steps may be taken to bring the subject of “ Phar¬ 
maceutical Titles ” prominently before the Council, 
I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, 
Spes. 
Sir,—Your correspondent “Omega” seems to be labouring 
under a mistake with regard to the motive which influenced 
me (at least) in taking up the subject of “ Pharmaceutical 
Titles.” 
That there is any wish in my mind to “ parade my intellec¬ 
tual status before the eyes of my confreres ” I most empha¬ 
tically deny; in fact, there is no need for such a desire. 
Those who are connected with our business are already fully 
aware of the exact worth of the existing titles, and if the 
public were equally well informed the necessity for an addi¬ 
tion to the means of distinction would be obviated. That 
they are not so becomes to me more and more apparent, and 
the wish that they should be made so increasingly urgent. 
But though I do not wish to parade the “ Major honours ” 
(which I hope to attain) for the sake of “parading,” and 
though I do not look to “ F.R..C.P.G-.B.” as the only reward 
for my future attainments, I do candidly admit that one of 
the motives which induced my longing for an amendment in 
the present state of affairs is “£. s. d .” 
This may be thought a very mercenary reason for any 
action connected with a scientific subject, but whilst phar¬ 
macy continues a “ business,” “ £. s. d.” must be a conside¬ 
ration, and a very important one, to those concerned in it. 
As I tried to express in my former letter, it is the manifest 
injustice of allowing “ Modified ” gentlemen to reap equal 
