760 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 18,1871. 
Dispensing Prices. 
Sir,—If it will not be encroaching on your valuable space 
with what, I ara sorry to say, has become a thing of frequent 
occurrence, I should like to add another example of that per¬ 
nicious and despicable system of undercharging. 
A few days since, a person, whose outward appearance cer¬ 
tainly bespoke respectability, brought the following prescrip¬ 
tion, and desired to know what we should charge for dispens¬ 
ing it:— 
R. Quinias Sulph. 9j 
Acid. Nit. Dil. 5ij 
Acid. Hydrochlor. Dil. 5j 
Sp. iEtli. Chlor. 5j 
Aquae Dest. ad ^xij- 
M. ft. mist. Sumat coch. amp. ij bis die. 
2s. 3d., including bottle, was the price mentioned, which was, 
if anything, insufficient, considering the amount of quinine, 
besides the fact of there being sufficient to last the patient 
six days. She then said that she never paid more than 
Is. 8d. for it, and had had it for that amount at a chemist’s 
in the north-west of London, at the same time stressing the 
fact that his establishment was on a large scale. On refer¬ 
ring to the Register, I find that he is a Pharmaceutical Che¬ 
mist by Examination, and also a member of the Society, 
and his shop is in one of the most fashionable districts of 
London. It seems to me that notwithstanding all our boasted 
education and strenuous measures to improve the trade, the 
modern chemists forget the proverb “Live and let live,” and 
try as far as possible to injure themselves and the trade in 
general. ______ Grumbler. 
Sir,—The following prescriptions were brought to me some 
time since to be dispensed:— 
R. Quin. Disulph. 3ij 
Sp. iEth. Chlor. Destii. 5'j 
Tinct. Eerri Sesquichlor. 5iij 
Mist. Camph. ad ^vj 
Ft. mist. Capiat coch. ampli bis terve die. 
Aug. 7th, 1866. T. W. G. 
When I told the person wdiat I thought a reasonable charge 
was, I was indeed almost insulted, for I was told that at every 
place in London where it had been dispensed they had only 
charged Is. 6d. Can anybody tell me what w r as used instead ? 
R. Codeiae gr. j§ 
Ext. Nucis Vom. gr. j 
Ext. Calumbae gr. ij. 
Ft. pil. et rep. ad xxiv, cap. ij ter die. 
This, I was told, was charged the usual price for two dozen 
pills, viz. Is. Codeia cost 26s. per oz.; what could have been 
used in this case? These pills have been taken regularly 
since the beginning of March last year until the end of July. 
Is not the dose of nux vomica rather strong ? 
Video. 
Pharmacy in Ireland. 
Sir,—I have read with great pleasure the letter of your cor¬ 
respondent “ Aliquis” on the above subject, and I believe his 
opinions to be those of the majority of the respectable apo¬ 
thecaries in this country. 
I hope that the few letters which have so far been published 
will show the leaders of the “Pharmaceutical Society” the 
real position of the druggists of Ireland, which (judging from 
some of the articles which have appeared in the Journal) I 
think they have unfortunately misunderstood, considering 
them analogous to the chemists and druggists of England and 
Scotland. 
I may here say that the reason why the druggists have not 
expressed their opinions in the Journal, as invited, is that 
they scarcely ever see it, the matter therein contained being 
entirely foreign to their line of business. 
With regard to the complaint that the apothecaries have 
an undue monopoly, it would be a very similar case if, in 
seventy years’ time, the grocers of England were to complain 
that while they (the grocers) were allowed to sell drugs, 
such as castor oil, etc., they were not allowed to compound 
medicines under a heavy penalty. Of course the answer would 
be that the privilege was theirs on passing the necessary 
examination; and this is the case with regard to the Irish 
druggists, with this exception, that in England the examina¬ 
tion is confined to subjects necessary for the proper discharg¬ 
ing of their duties as dispensing chemists, while in Ireland 
unfortunately it is not so; and this, together with the assi¬ 
milation of the laws which govern the two countries, would 
seem to be the principal advantages gained bv making a 
change in the present system ; for, so long as a sufficient num¬ 
ber of gentlemen think their remuneration as apothecaries a 
sufficient reward for the high education required of them, I do 
not see any other ground on which to complain of their mono¬ 
polizing the dispensing part of the profession. Of course, if 
they abused that monopoly by charging exorbitant prices, 
etc. there would be more ground for complaint; but this 
is not the case. 
In conclusion, I think the Pharmaceutical Society might 
with advantage frame a "Bill similar to the one proposed by 
the Apothecaries’ Hall, omitting the Modified Examination 
for druggists, which was necessary in England to protect 
existing interests, but is not so in Ireland. Such a Bill will 
be far less likely to meet with opposition from the apotheca¬ 
ries, in the face of which it is scarcely possible that any mea¬ 
sure on the subject could become law. 
Oswald A. Readk, 
Belfast. _______ Local Secretary. 
Exemption prom Serving on Juries. 
Sir,—As according to the present Act of Parliament phar¬ 
maceutical chemists only are exempted from serving on juries, 
and as the same duties and obligations devolve on chemists 
and druggists, I think it only just that the same privilege 
should be extended to the whole of the trade. 
Such a measure would tend to remove any existing jea¬ 
lousies between the two departments, and they would be 
enabled to act more in concert for the general welfare. 
A short Act could easily be introduced to Parliament for 
the purpose. 
7, Wheeler Street, Birmingham, James A. Foster. 
2nd hlarch , 1871. 
Louisa Blumbley. —We are of opinion that clause 16 of 
the Pharmacy Act, 1868, which creates exceptions, must be 
strictly construed in favour of the public, so that the widow 
of a deceased chemist and druggist will not stand in any more 
favoured position than any descendant, ancestor, or collateral 
relative of a deceased chemist and druggist would stand in. 
In short, that no relative of a chemist and druggist can claim 
any special exemption in right of the relationship, and the 
only persons who can claim the special exemption are those 
who stand in the position of trust as defined in the statute. 
W. Hartley. —No. 
“Tonic” (Watford).—You will find the information you 
require concerning quinine wine given in a letter printed on 
p. 519 of the present volume. 
“ Omega ” will find the formula for Dr. Coffin’s composi¬ 
tion powder on p. 457 of the present volume. 
C. E. W. —The formula for Easton’s syrup has been already 
given in the present volume, p. 377. See also the corre¬ 
spondence respecting it on pp. 397 and 419. 
T. W. (Scarborough).—We are informed that the third 
edition of Attfield’s ‘ Chemistry ’ is now being printed, but 
that it is intended chiefly for American circulation, being, 
adapted to the United States’ Pharmacopoeia. 
“ Aroma.” —The ‘ Journal of the Society of Arts ’ is pub¬ 
lished by Messrs. Bell and Daldy, York Street, Covent Garden. 
We are compelled to defer the publication of several 
letters until next week. 
The following journals have been received:—The ‘British 
Medical Journal,’ March 11; the ‘Medical Times and Gazette,’ 
March 11; the ‘ Lancet,’ March 11; the ‘ Medical Press and 
Circular,’ March 16; ‘ Nature,’ March9; the ‘Chemical News,’ 
March 10; ‘Journal of the Society of Arts,’ March 9; ‘Gar¬ 
deners’Chronicle,’ March 11; the ‘Grocer,’ Marchll; ‘Produce 
Markets Review,’ March 11; the ‘ English Mechanic/ March 
10; the ‘ Chemist and Druggist ’ for March; the ‘ New York 
Druggists’ Circular ’ for February. 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Mr. T. P. Blunt, Mr. T. A. Reeve, Mr. J. Barker, Mr. F. B. 
Benger, Mr. D. H. Warwick, Mr. M. C. Cooke, Mr. F. Coles, 
Mr. S. Dean, Mr. Cohen, Mr. D. Anderson, Mr. W. Lee, 
Dr. Steele, Mr. W. W. Stoddart, “ Alpha,” “ Nil sine Lahore,” 
“Vincit Amor Patriae,” “Senega,” “Apprentice,” C. W~ 
A. 0. Z., T. E. R., J. H. 
