498 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December 17 ,1S70. 
*** No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
The Storage of Poisons Question. 
Sir,—The importance of the subject will, I trust, be a suffi¬ 
cient excuse for troubling your readers with a few observa¬ 
tions upon it. I have not yet heard the result of the discus¬ 
sion which took place at the meeting of the Council on the 
7th instant, I am therefore unacquainted with the latest ex- 
ression of its opinion. I am hopeful that the Council will 
e inclined merely to recommend with all the influence of its 
authority some well-considered plan for the voluntary adop¬ 
tion of the trade. The enforcement of regulations for the 
storing of poisons by the hand of the law, will not, I am sure, 
be tolerated; and the necessity for any legal interference, I 
and the majority have yet to discover. It is said that Go¬ 
vernment, through the Privy Council, has been or is putting 
the pressure upon the Pharmaceutical Council, and that the 
proposed legal interference, if the trade permit it, will be in¬ 
troduced, not because it is imperative to ensure the safety of 
the public, but mainly as a result of the bidding of the powers 
that be. If such pressure really exists, I hope the Council 
will wisely and manfully stand against it, rather than fetter 
the trade with vexatious restrictions. If the Council be the. 
willing servants of the State, and are disposed to yield, I 
have little doubt but that the trade will put itself into a firm 
attitude of defence, to prevent the bartering of our trade 
liberty. The educational test now required, along with the 
caution and care resulting from an ever-present prudent sell- 
interest, to say nothing of the penalties of judicial action 
under Lord Campbell’s Act, are enough to ensure the safety 
of the public. If Government, however, is so very anxious to 
experiment in the direction proposed, let it bring in a measure 
to institute certain regulations in the surgeries of medical 
men, where the greater part of the dispensing of medicines 
is done, and where the usual safeguards are not always pre¬ 
sent. I do not say that this is at all necessary, but I do say 
that to attempt to saddle the chemist with restrictions, and 
let the medical man go free, would be a most insulting, foolish 
and unfair procedure. If the chemists of Great Britain per¬ 
mit themselves to be placed under obnoxious State surveil¬ 
lance and restraint in the mode of carrying on their business 
—for to institute regulations for the storing of poisons and 
not have them carried into effect, would be an absurdity—in 
the course of time some other new and spurious safeguard 
would be considered necessary. As for instance the inspection 
of chemical balances and scales used in dispensing, for the 
danger of using a wrong balance is almost as great as using 
the contents ot a wrong bottle. Let us take warning and 
prevent the first wrong step, ancl the second will not be taken. 
Robert Hampson. 
Manchester, Dec. 13 th, 1870. 
Obscure Prescriptions. 
Sir,—The correspondence in the Journal respecting “ Ob¬ 
scure Prescriptions,” brings to my mind what took place in 
my locality about thirty years ago. 
A physician, at that time living near Blackfriars Bridge, 
used to give advice gratis, but compelled, as much as possible, 
all his patients to go to a certain chemist to have his pre¬ 
scriptions dispensed. 
Particular marks were put upon the prescriptions by the 
privileged chemist every time he dispensed them, so that the 
physician might know whether they had been dispensed each 
time he saw them. He also took care that no one else could 
dispense them, by resorting to hieroglvphics. 
This chemist after a time sold his business to another for a 
considerable sum, with the understanding that the physician’s 
favours would be continued, but from some cause the physician 
shortly afterwards transferred them to a surgeon-retailer. 
This provoked the chemist. He had circulars printed, 
which he sent very freely about the neighbourhood, stating 
that he was induced to purchase the business by the hope of 
having the physician’s favours, that he had had to give the 
physician two pounds or guineas per week for the patronage, 
and that the physician called regularly every Saturday and 
never left without the money. 
London , December 12 th, 1870. Tnos. Kent, 
Druggists’ Charges. 
Doctor Kidd regrets that he gave a moment’s annoyance to 
Mr. Ramsden, but he did not make any the remotest allusion 
to Mr. Ramsden. Grosvenor Square was given chiefly as 
showing that the “cutting down” system is unhappily com¬ 
mon to this as well as other parts of London, though in such 
rich districts there could not be much excuse for it. 
Sir,—Mr. Pollard, of Wavertree, has published a letter in 
this day’s Journal, stating that a customer of his has had 
three dozen pills dispensed, at a first-class chemist’s at Wol¬ 
verhampton, for 8 d. Will you allow me to tell him that he 
must have been the victim of a falsehood. 
I do not know Mr. Pollard, but should fancy he has had 
little experience in such cases, or he would be very well 
aware that it is a very common practice with some people te 
have a prescription dispensed, and then, in order to get a 
reduction in the price, will say that they can get it for so 
much less at some distant town. I never believe them, for, 
some years ago, I took the trouble to ascertain the truth of 
some of these statements, when I always found I had been, 
misinformed. 
There is no doubt that some chemists are cutting the dis¬ 
pensing trade very much; still, it does not do to believe 
every exaggerated case that a strange customer will tell you, 
Mr. Pollard should have asked his customer the chemist’s 
name, and should then have written to ascertain the truth, 
of it before he published his letter in the Journal. 
W. Y. Brevitt, Local Secretary , 
Wolverhampton, December 10 th, 1870. 
Sir,—I have read with’ great interest the various letters' 
which have lately appeared relative to the very low prices 
charged by some chemists, and I have often thought what a 
great desideratum would be conferred upon our profession, 
could all in a town agree to have one tariff. The other day I 
had a prescription brought to my shop to be compounded,—it 
was for an eight-ounce mixture, contained eight ingredients, 
including one ounce of tinct. aurantii, and an extraordinary 
large quantity of bismuth, trisnit. I thought no respectable 
chemist would charge less than Is. 6d., which amount I asked 
for its being faithfully dispensed; but this morning, Sir, I 
had the gratification of being informed that it had since been 
made up in this town by a Pharmaceutical Chemist and a 
twenty years’ member of our Society, and his charge was 
Is. 2d., and also that the said Pharmaceutical Chemist un- 
blushingly sells Is. l|d. patents for 11(7., and charges 5s. tor 
Mrs. Allen’s Hair Restorer. Now, Sir, can we consistently 
complain of the “cutting” prices charged by those chemists 
who have never been educated to the profession, who have 
either been doctors’ boys or dispensers at hospitals, when 
such things as these are done by an old member of our 
Society ? I deeply regret to see it, being a reflection on that 
Society whose object and aim is the advance of pharmacy. 
“CONSISTENCT.” 
Sir,—The following advertisement appeared in one of the 
leading Bristol daily papers:— 
RUGGISTS AND THEIR CHARGES.—Look at the 
Extract from t he Lancet, copied into the Local Papers. 
—one man charges 4s. for a 6-ounce Bottle of Medicine, an¬ 
other Is. 6 d. for the same. I charge, on an average, only 9c/. 
Can it be possible that the Public will still submit to such an 
enormous imposition?— H. Hodder, 11, Broad St., Bristol , 
It surely behoves us to urge on the Society at Bloomsbury 
Square to lay down a list of prices, whereby we may all keep 
as near the standard as possible without laying ourselves open, 
to be insulted by such “ black sheep ” as the above. 
Bristol. “Live and Let Live.” 
Sir,—As the profits on medicine have been so freely dis¬ 
cussed in the pages of our Journal, owing to some remarks, 
made in the Lancet respecting our charges, perhaps the follow¬ 
ing may not be out of place, to show that our profits are not 
so enormous as are generally considered by those who only 
speak from hearsay, and not from experience. 
I have known the drug business just thirty years, yet I 
cannot give you an instance of a man retiring on a coinpe- 
