328 
'THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [October 21,1871- 
salt, vaccine lymph, cholera mixtures, etc. Medicine is 
■no longer a trade , even in drugs. Practitioners are under 
the necessity of supplying drugs to their patients because 
druggists have not yet discovered the art of dispensing pre¬ 
scriptions on practicable terms. But this is a mere accom¬ 
modation to their patients, and not hf the essence of their 
services. A medical man should always, therefore, sus¬ 
pect himself when he finds wares of any kind entering 
largely into his idea of medical practice.” 
To the definition of the distinction between a trade 
and a profession we have nothing to object; but the 
tender forethought with which the “ modest diffi¬ 
dence ” of offending professional gentlemen is sug¬ 
gested,—the discrimination between excusable and 
inexcusable trade,—and the excuse furnished for the 
excusable,—are all worthy of the acknowledged high 
talents of the Lancet staff. 
We are afraid that a suggestion that the low rate 
of fees charged for professional services by some 
practitioners arises from their inadequate sense of 
the value of medical service will be looked upon as 
a euphemism; but that which concerns us more 
particularly is the moral pointed. 
“We have great respect for all earnest attempts to 
supply the working man with good medical attendance 
on terms which are practicable; hut it is not to be done 
by private practitioners advertising their services as 
available for all and sundry on terms which would scarcely 
pay a respectable druggist .” 
What inference are we to draw from this remark¬ 
able sentence? Does the prescribing by druggists 
become tolerable to the Lancet when the price paid 
is below a certain amount ? And may we here find 
the Lancet's estimate of the relative positions of prac¬ 
titioners and pharmacists? Of course it is not 
credible that our contemporary would speak super¬ 
ciliously of chemists and druggists, but the mind in¬ 
sensibly reverts to the phrase, “And not as this 
publican,” 
As we have said before, we do not presume to 
interfere in the disputes of medical men. We are 
satisfied with ejaculating— 
“ Tantaene animis coelestibus me ?” 
But does it not seem remarkable that educated 
gentlemen should be unable to decide for themselves 
what is right and proper, when such public discus¬ 
sion might lay them under the imputation of another 
weakness that the Lancet charges them with,—the 
love of publicity and advertisement? Might we 
commend to their notice the remark of a modern 
writer, that “ to consume your own clioler, as some 
chimneys consume their own smoke, is a negative, 
yet no slight virtue, nor one of the commonest in 
these times.” And this especially as the Editor of 
the Lancet —who, on this occasion, has not been 
able to spare quite three columns—has half intimated 
that all the twigs of his editorial birch are not yet 
worn out. 
iransiutions of % pipraamitml Jtoftirtg. 
EXAMINATIONS IN LONDON. 
October 11th and 18 th, 1871. 
Present (lltli)—Messrs. Allchin, Barnes, Bird, Car- 
teighe, Cracknell, Davenport, Gale, Garle, Haseldcn, 
Ince, Linford and Southall. 
Dr. Greenhow was also present, on behalf of the 
Privy Council. 
(18th)—Messrs. Allchin, Barnes, Bird, Carteigho, 
Cracknell, Davenport, Edwards, Gale, Garle, Haseldcn, 
Ince, Linford and Southall. 
Seven Candidates presented themselves for the Major 
Examination; two failed, five passed. Thirty-six pre¬ 
sented themselves for the Minor Examination; nineteen 
failed, seventeen passed. 
The following were declared duly qualified to be re¬ 
gistered :— 
MAJOR, (as Pharmaceutical Chemists). 
Maddock, William Thomas .. London. 
Marks, Benjamin.Plymouth. 
Gill, Joseph William .Pendleton. 
Woolley, Harold .Manchester. 
Browne, Joseph Allcyne.London. 
MINOR (as Chemists and Druggists). 
* Jameson, William Edward.... Bristol. 
* Caswell, Thomas George ... .Dudley. 
* Grayson, Charles.Bawtry. 
*Redfem, John .Oxford. 
Tamplin,"Charles Edward . .Kingston-on-Thames.. 
Jones/Moses.Swansea. 
Hargreaves, Joseph.Liverpool. 
Peel, Alfred .Manchester. 
Fuller, John William.London. 
Kennerley, William.Manchester. 
Mumby, Charles John Everitt .Bury St. Edmund’s.. 
Saunders, Thomas Samuel ... .Notting Hill. 
Grace, Walter Abraham.Liverpool. 
Morgan, Rhys Dafydd.Reading. 
Marshall, Alfred .Hornsey. 
Peake, Arthur .Stalybridge. 
Gardner, James Richard.Devonport. 
The above names are arranged in order of merit. 
FIRST, OR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION. 
Two hundred and twenty-two candidates presented, 
themselves for this Examination on the 2nd of October 
eighty-two failed, the following one hundred and forty 
passed, and were declared to he duly qualified to be- 
registered as— 
APPRENTICES OR STUDENTS. 
Brown, Joseph.Croydon. 
Griffiths, Evan.Cardiff. 
Ingham, Thomas Whittaker .. Rawtenstall. 
"3 ( Hine, Alfred Leonard.Cheltenham. 
( Longman, John Ham.Exeter. 
Chadwick, Thomas Edward . .Bradford, Yorks.. 
Bond, Frederick John.Tiverton. 
3 ( Crosby, John Briggs .Stamford. 
( Newton, Francis Bourne.London. 
Evans, John.Cardigan. 
Cassels, David Malloch .Lanark. 
Brice, Francis .Leicester. 
Tomlinson, Eldred Edward . .Whitehaven. 
Best, John William.Darlington. 
( Jackson, Barnet Edward .... Heywood. 
| J Mann, George Frederick ... .Wells, Norfolk. 
w ( Power, Edward Thomas.Reading. 
* Passed with honours. 
