December 2,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
445 
were by Parliament on tlie 17th of November, 1641. The following* is an order of King* James VI., dated 
Upon application to the Common Council of Edinburgh, July, 1621 
they, by their Act of the 26th of February, 1657, erected 
the surgeons and apothecaries into one community, 
which, with former privileges, were confirmed by 
Charles II. and ratified by Parliament on the 22nd of 
August, 1670, as they were sometime after, by letters of 
William and Mary, of the 28th Febi'uary, 1694, with an 
additional grant to practise w*ithin the counties of East, 
West and Mid-Lothians, the shires of Fife, Peebles, Sel¬ 
kirk, Roxburgh and Berwick, which was confirmed by 
Parliament on 17th July, 1695. 
The arts of surgery and pharmacy being thus united, 
the Corporation laid aside the barber craft, which occa¬ 
sioned the Common Council, by their Act of the 26tlx 
July, 1682, to recommend to the Company to take care 
to supply the town with a sufficient number of persons 
qualified to shave and cut hair, on such terms as they 
could best agree on, and that the said persons should be 
held as dependants on the surgeons, which was accord¬ 
ingly performed, and so continued till the 23rd February, 
1722, when the Court of Session, by their decree of this 
date, separated the barbers from the surgeons in all re¬ 
spects, other than the barbers are obliged to register the 
apprentices with the surgeons, and to be admitted by 
them and the barbers. Now the barbers being for¬ 
bidden to practise surgery, the Common Council in lieu 
thereof, allowed them to make a spirituous liquor, called 
aqua vitae. 
In 1621, we find the first mention of apothecaries in 
Edinburgh, in connection with an order by King James 
VI. to the Parliament, for a College of Physicians 
there. Here, then, we find the nearest approach to 
pharmacy, as a distinct branch, which the ’well-meaning 
physicians intended to look after, by proposing to have 
three of their number set aside for this purpose. For¬ 
tunately, however, for the apothecary, this order never 
became law r , though repeated attempts were made by 
them to gain their purpose. It is evident by this time, 
that a distinct body of men had begun to practise phar¬ 
macy, apart from the surgeons, barbers and physicians, 
yet practising some of the minor operations in surgery, 
under the designation of apothecaries. This appears to 
have been the result of circumstances, more than any¬ 
thing else; at the same time the physicians and surgeons 
rose in their own and the public estimation, just in pro¬ 
portion as pharmacy -was left to the apothecaries. Yet 
the physicians felt this new arrangement most galling, 
and *wcre loth to see the apothecary acting independently. 
We SCO the progressive development of pharmacy, in the 
draft of certain particulars which the physicians wanted, 
when in 1630 they applied to King Charles I., in a 
renewed attempt to obtain a charter for a college. Here 
first mention of druggists—or drogists, as they were then 
called—is made. Then, in 1656, the physicians once more 
renewed their application to Cromwell; and in the me¬ 
morial drawn out for this purpose, the druggists are 
again referred to, and on this occasion they seem to have 
risen somewhat in the social scale, because they are 
named before the apothecaries. Whether this was caused 
by their superiority, or greater troublesomeness to the 
physician, is not known. It is evident, however, that 
jealousy was very strong amongst all grades connected 
with the “healing art.” When we look back to the list, 
which includes the monk, herbalist, stirgeon, surgeon- 
barber, apothecary, physician and druggist, we, as phar¬ 
maceutists of the present day, may form some idea of 
our- origin, and the associations connected with phar¬ 
macy in Edinburgh. 
I will now read some extracts from the Council Re¬ 
gister, which will convey to you some notion of the ex¬ 
actions attempted to be enforced upon the pharmaceu¬ 
tists by their brethren in the higher grades of the Escu- 
lapian art, which were, however, no more successful 
than were similar attempts made in this direction during 
the present year. 
“ Commissionaris, and Estates of Parliament, we greit 
you heartilie well, 
“For sae raeikle, as we are certainlie informet, of the 
gryte abuse done and practised; be ane number of ig¬ 
norant and unskilfull persons, quha without knowledge 
of the sciense and facultye of medicine, being nather 
learned nor graduat therein, presumes at their awen 
hand to profess and practice physick and medicine to the 
gryt and evident hazardo and danger of the lyffes and 
healthes of many of our subjects, quhilk evill is becume 
so ryff and frequent, that the samyne is lyklie to produce 
great harine and detriment, except the samyne be 
tymouslie prevented,” etc. etc. 
The order goes on to describe the nature of the con¬ 
stitution of the College, how its professors w*ere to bo 
elected, etc.; but the doctors could not venture, even at 
this date, to leave the poor druggists out in the cold, 
with no one to look after them, so they provided that 
warrant be given to the said College and Incorporation, 
“ To make choice yierlic of three of their number, who 
sail have the cair and charge to scarche and try the 
freshness and sufficicncie of all drogges, wares and medi¬ 
caments, being within all and whatsumever apothecaries 
choppes, within our said burgh of Edinburgh, and gif 
they be found corrupt and insufficient, to destroy the 
samyne, and that ye sett down penalties against the re¬ 
fusers or contraveners of the said statute,” etc. 
“ Given at our Manor of Otelandri, the third day of 
Julie, 1621.” 
The following is attached thereto :— 
“ This conteynes your Majesties warrant to the Corn- 
missionaries and Estates of Parliament, for the erecting 
of a colledge of physicians, and prohibiting wemen and 
ignorant persons practising that arte in Scotland. 
“Signed, George Hay, 2nd August, 1681.” 
It has been truly said, history repeats itself. How 
strangely does the reading of the resti’ictions in the 
above sound in our ears, after what has so lately hap¬ 
pened ! Though 250 years have come and gone, yet the 
order of 1621 had much the same fate as the intended 
Bill of 1871. 
The wise and gracious purposes of Bang James were 
therefore frustrated, and it is strange to notice the means 
which were used in those days to accomplish this. It 
wa3 through the influence of the clergy. The bishops 
saw their prescriptive privileges were thereby affected, 
and suspected, whether justly or not, that the physicians, 
as to their religious or rather their ecclesiastical opinions, 
had too much sympathy with the popular party, who were 
not favourable to the episcopal rule. The corporation 
of surgeons were also alarmed for their own privileges, 
and very readily lent their co-operation to defeat the de¬ 
sign of the physicians. In 1630, the physicians of Edin¬ 
burgh again renewed their attempt to obtain a patent. 
Their application this time was to King Charles I., who 
referred the matter to the consideration of the Privy 
Council, who in turn ordered the physicians to give in 
some heads and articles for the erection of a college, 
which they did in 1633. From these articles it appears 
that, not daunted by their former want of success, they 
now demanded greater powers and more extended privi¬ 
leges, and proposed that the institution should have, not 
a local character and jurisdiction merely, but national. 
As in former days, however, opposition was raised from 
the old quarter, hence obstruction and delay resulted. 
But, to give you some notion of w*hat they proposed to 
do with the druggists and apothecaries, over and above 
looking after themselves and the surgeons, I will read a 
few extracts from some of the articles which they drew 
up :— 
“ Article 5th.—That power be granted to all the par¬ 
ticular societies of medicine, of the foresaid incorporation, 
to appoint yearly, at what time it sail bo thought by the 
said societie most expedient, two censors of their number 
