53^  British  Pharmaceutical  Conference.  {Am0^!fi^rm' 
that  not  only  should  master  pharmacists  be  able  to  instruct  their  pupils,  but 
those  pupils  should  be  in  condition  to  be  instructed.  It  is  impossible  to  read 
the  reports  of  the  Government  Visitors  of  Examinations,  and  especially  those 
of  Sir  Douglas  Maclagan,  without  being  impressed  by  the  painful  conviction 
that  this  is  not  the  case,  and  that  the  majority  of  the  youths  who  have  entered 
the  business  of  pharmacy  have  not  been  in  a  condition  to  be  instructed  in  the 
practice  of  the  calling  they  aspire  to,  or  in  the  scientific  principles  upon  which 
it  is  based.  And  yet  upon  the  very  same  occasion  it  was  admitted  that  if  prac- 
tical pharmacy  is  to  arrive  at  anything  like  perfection,  it  must  be  upon  a 
scientific  basis,  tinder  such  conditions  it  is  worse  than  folly  to  complain  that 
there  is  over-education  in  pharmacy.  It  is  culpable  blindness  to  do  so.  The 
real  fact  is  that  pharmaceutical  education,  such  as  it  is,  is  to  a  great  extent 
spurious.  So  long  as  such  a  condition  continues  there  can  be  no  hope  of 
sound  and  general  improvement  in  the  practice  of  pharmacy.  That  is  opposed 
by  an  influence  akin  to  the  "  Chinese  cheap  labor  "  deplored  by  Mr.  William 
Nye.  It  is  not,  therefore,  remarkable,  that  Mr.  Stanford  discreetly  abstained 
from  answering  the  question  he  had  propounded  as  to  how  far  pharmacy  in 
this  country  has  kept  pace  with  general  progress.  The  answer  could  scarcely 
have  been  encouraging.  The  account  given  by  Mr.  Stanford  of  evils  which 
the  better  class  of  pharmacists  have  to  contend  against  is  sufficiently  formid- 
able. The  competition  of  limited  liability  companies  and  co-operative  stores, 
the  invasion  of  the  chemist's  special  province  by  the  illegal  sale  of  poisons, 
the  irregular  business  carried  on  at  the  open  shops  of  doctors  or  under  their 
cover,  and  the  trade  in  proprietary  medicines  are,  no  doubt,  all  serious  evils. 
But,  in  some  respects,  the}'  have  been  brought  into  existence  or  promoted  by 
those  who  complain  of  their  prejudicial  influence.  In  the  case  of  proprietary 
medicines,  for  instance,  which  no  less  appeal  to  the  gullibility  of  the  "thirty 
millions,  mostly  fools,"  constituting  the  British  public,  than  tiger's  bones  do 
to  Chinese  credulity,  chemists  have  themselves  contributed  largely  to  the 
increase  of  their  popularity.  In  regard  to  these  articles  we  cannot  agree  with 
Mr.  Stanford's  suggestion  that  they  should  be  really  made  the  subject  of 
letters-patent.  Such  a  proceeding  would  give  them  the  authoritative  recogni- 
tion which  they  are  now  wholly  destitute  of.  The  idea  of  abolishing  the 
stamp  duty  on  these  articles  appears  to  be  equally  a  mistake.  By  that  means 
they  would  be  relieved  from  the  imposition  of  a  tax  that  was  intended  to  and 
does,  to  some  extent,  restrict  their  sale.  We  fail  altogether  to  perceive  what 
possible  good  would  accrue  either  to  the  pharmacist  or  to  the  public  from  the 
adoption  of  either  course.  It  is  probably  impossible  for  legislation  to  counter- 
act the  effect  of  "bold  advertisement"  or  to  lessen  its  influence  upon  public 
credulity.  The  only  remedy  open  to  the  pharmacist  appears  to  be  that  of 
refusing  to  be  an  agent  for  the  distribution  of  these  articles,  and  that,  perhaps, 
is  more  than  can  be  expected.  So  far  as  illegal  sale  of  poison  is  practised 
under  cover  of  the  secrecy  maintained  as  to  the  composition  of  proprietary 
articles,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  practice  will  before  long  be  put  a 
stop  to,  and  that  the  dangers  arising  from  concealed  distribution  of  narcotic 
and  other  poisons,  in  the  form  of  proprietary  articles  liable  to  medicine  stamp 
duty,  will  cease  to  exist.  The  consequent  appropriate  regulation  of  the  trade 
in  such  dangerous  articles  will  tend  to  satisfy  the  demands  which  have  so  long 
been  urged  by  coroners  and  by  the  medical  profession  in  the  public  interest. 
