Star.
London, England, 1808-04-21 00:00:00

, rates of the charge of the Apothecary General, and
of the Gentlemen before named, it appears that there
is-often a difference in the prices of these Gentlemen
as between themselves, and that, in some instances,
their prices exceed those of the Apothecary General ;
bit that, on the whole, his prices exceed those of
Messrs. Godfrey and Cooke by 41 per cent. and of
Messrs. Corbyn and Co. by 18 per cent in the year
1804 ; and in 1805 they exceed the first by i 7, and
the second by 19 per cent. Some explanation, how-
ever, is necessary in this place : it is well known that
the prices which merchants and tradesmen charge for
the articles they furnish are, in a great measure, re-
gulated by the epiantity furnished, by the credit
which is given, and by the risk of payment ;-.--and,
without a coi siteration of these circumstances, no
ce mparison can be justly made. In the present case,
we learn from Mr. Cooke, the partner of Mr. Goal
frey, that his prices are fixed on the principle of his
customer being a merchant buying largely, and at s'l•
months credit : 4, Was the credit," he says, ~ to be
extended to twelve months in addition (or eighteen
months altogether) he would have added about 101
per cent. to his prices." In comparing, therefore,l
Messrs. Godfrey and Cooke's prices with the Apo-
thecary General's, 101. per cent. ought to be added
to the former ; for the Apothecary General's bills
were seldom paid sooner than eighteen months, and
sometimes not until two years atter the supply was
made. With respect to Messrs. Corbyn and Co.'s
prices, it is to be understood that, in fixing them,
they have proceeded on' the principle of the articles
being furnished to apothecaries, to a hom they give
twelve months credit but they look on the risk, it
seems, in this case, to be considerable, and they have
taken it accordingly into their valuation. They have
also calculated their prices on the small quantities
of medicines usually furnished to apothecaries, but if
such large quantities were furnished, as were described
to be furnished in a year by the Apothecary Gene-
ral, Mr. Messer (of Messrs. Corbyn's house) thought
that Messrs. Corbyn's prkes should be reduced ten
per cent. on drugs, and twenty per cent. on chemi-
cal preparations ; and, were the payment delayed for
eighteen months or two years, Mr. Messer says,
taking into consideration the quantity of supply
with certainty of payment, that he still thinks the
prices which his house had affixed to the hills ought
to satisfy any person." On the whole, therefore, st e
may consider, that the prices of Messrs. Godfrey
and Cooke-, and of Messrs. Corbyn' and Co. under
the circumstances of a wholesale supply and eighteen
months credit, without risk, would not have mat,:ri-
ally diffeied from each other. But these are the cir-
cumstances under which the Apothecary General
has furnished Medicines, Sec. to the Army, and these
prices are about one-fifth higher than those which we
have last considered.
We observe, on an inspection of the medicine hills
of the Ordnance and Transport Boards, for the years
1804 and 1805, that the prices of Some of the more
valuable articles, unlike what we had observed in
the Apothecary General's vary frequently in
the course of the same year. Thit circumstance, at
the same time that it proved the inefficacy of the
check on his prices, made it difficult for us to com-
pare there with those charges to the two boards.—
We have extracted the prices, however, of some of
the articles most commonly in use, from his bill fo:
the month of July in the year 1805, and the prices
for the same kind of articles charged to the Ordnance
Board by Messrs. Bush and Howard, and to the
Transport Board by the Apothecaries Company in
the same year and month, and we have arranged
them in separate columns. This arrangement shews
that the prices of the Apothecary General do not
much exceed those of the Apothecaries Company,
but that they exceed those of hlessis. rush and How-
ard nearly sixty per cent. It must not be overlook-
ed, however, that the bills of the Apothecaries Com-
pany are delivered in quarterly to the Transport
Board, and, alter having been examined, are paid
by ninety days bills, but without interest. Such a
difference in the time of payment may sufficiently
account, perhaps, for the Apothecary-General's
excess of charge beyond the Apothecaries Company.
—The Ordnance Medicine bills are also made out
quarterly, and, after being certified by the Sur-
geon General belonging to that Department, are
sent to the Surveyor General's Office, and are dis-
charged in course. in this case too, 'therefore,
an addition ought to be made to the prices, in order
to make a correct comparison between them and
those of the Apothecary General ; but this addition
must be Much less than sixty per cent.
The result Of this coarse of inquiry would shew,
if the Prices of the Apothecaries Company are to be
the criterion by which to examine the Apothecary-
General's bills, that the prices which have been al-
lowed him are not very improper. But ought these
prices alone tee have guided those whose ditty it has
been to examine his accounts ? Had the prices of the
most eminent of the trade been also resorted to, for
the purpose of checking the account, it would have
appeared that, even taking into consideration the de-
lay of payment, the prices of the Apothecary Gene-
ral have exceeded, by one fifth at least., what should
have been allowed him.

have made a real lose.ps Omen/Mit-of twenty per
-cent. Mr. Gamier subjoined a statement of what
he then (1797) charged for each set of instruments
'called capitals, and what would have been the charge
if the plan had been adopted. In this he states, that
his charge was seventeen pounds seventeen shillings
per set ; but that if bought on an annual credit, the
charge to him would be nineteen pounds nine shil-
lings, to which adding ten per cent. Conimission,•
the whole price would be twenty-one pounds eight
shillings, or a loss to Government of three pounds..
eleven shillings, i. e. twenty per cent.
It is manifest, on a view of this statement, that it
cannot be correct, for it assumes the point in ques-
tion, and proceeds on the supposition that the instru-
ments could not have been procured' by Mr. Garnier,
at less than ten per cent. above the price which, even
under the circumstance of the long delay in payment,
was charged by him to Government. That which
we are about to state will spew, that he was altoge-
ther mistaken in his representation on this point.—
For-we have examined Mr. Evans, one of the trades-
men to whom Mr. Gamier alludes,-on the subject.
We selected Mr. Evans, because it appeared that his
house has furnished surgical instruments to the Navy
Hospitals, under the orders of the Transport Board,
for a considerable number of years. We have con-
fined our inqniries relative to Mr. Evans's prices to
the period subsequent to 1802, because by a prior re-
gulation, the instruments which are to constitute what
are called full sets of capitals and portable sets of
capitals, are particularly enumerated ; and therefore
when Mr. Evans speaks of these different CoNctions,
it is evident thathe speaks of the same as are charged'
in the Apothecary General's bills by those names. In
these bills for the year 1804 and 180.5, we- find that
the charge for full sets is always nineteen pounds nine-
teen shillings each, and thirteen pounds five shillings
for each set of portables. During this period, Mr.
Evans has charged sixteen pounds sixteen shillings
for the first, and nine pounds nine shillings for the
second, including in both the price of • the cases.—,
These are Mr. Evans's prices, however, when these
articles were sold on the usual credit ; and: therefore
it may be remarked that they can be no fit criterion
by which to judge of the Apothecary-General's
prices, for that he was seldom paid under eighteen
months, and sometimes not until two years after the
supply. To meet this objection, Mr: Evans was asked
what would have been kis prices under such a
circumstance ? but adding to the question at the
same time (what was the fact in respect of the Apo.
thecary General), that the supply of Surgical Instru-
ments in each year had amounted, on an. average,
to seven thousand pounds, with no ultimate risk of
payment. His answer shews, that under all these
circumstances, he would not only not have added to
the prices before named by him, but that he 'would
have deducted firm the total amount "certainly not
less than 5 per ant." This, thcr.fore,ought to have
been the principle on which the Apothecary General
should have made his chart es ; for it. is the rule of
charging between the tradesman and the consumer
for which he contends. His charge, however, for a
full set of Capitals, is about 19 per cent. above Mr.
Evans's, and 40 per cent. abc.ve Mr. Evans's charge
for a set of Portables : and these prices have been al
lowed (as it should seem, without enquiry) by these
whose duty it was to check the charge.
We have learned another fact from Mr. Evans de-
serving of attention, also, on a view of the prices
which have been charged, a-A allowed, in the Apo-
thecary General's bills. The screw Tourniquets, for
which the Apothecary General always charges twelve
shillings and sixpence each, are sold singly by Mr.
Evans at ten shillings and sixpence, and under a sort
of contract with the Transport Board, are supplied
by him to the Navy at eight shillings each ; being
an addition to Mr. Evans's prices of above 50 per
cent. by the Apothecary General, as a compensation
for an extension eferedit of fifteen or eighteen months.
The evidence which we have thus produced shews,
we think, a very blameable inattention in checking
the Apothecary General's charges in respect of Sur-
gical Instruments ; for the slightest enquiries would
have enabled those to whose consideration the prices
were; referred, to have ascertained that the charges
were ertt avagant.
The total charge for instruments from the begin-
ning of 1796 to the end of 1806, or for eleven years,
amounts to seventy-two thousand nine hundred and
nineteen pounds four shillings and eight pence, or
nearly seven thousand pounds per annum on an ave.
rage. When it is known that the-Regimental Sur.
geons have always found their own instruments, the
propriety of directing so large an additional supply
for the use of the army may well be questioned. The
statement, which we shall give hereafter of the quan- ,
tity now in store, will evince, we think, that there
has been a very great disregard to the public interest
in making such a provision.
The Apothecary General's bills for 1804 and 1805
include large charges for sugar, pearl barley, oat-
meal, paper, sheets, bottles, packing-cases, &c.—;
Many of these articles are not usually provided by
Apothecaries, and therefore it may be imagined, that
neither the Physician General nor Surgeon General
can be 'very competent to judge of the propriety of
the prices charged for them. Had they enquired,
the •

We hive already noticed, that the subject of the' however, into , matter, they would have -found,
supply of Surgical Instruments for the use of the 'Perhaps, as we have found, that even admitting an
Army, by the Apothecary-General, had heretofore. extra-charge on account of the delay of payments, the
been under the consideration of the Lords of the prices charged are improperly great.
Treasury, and that their Lordships were pleased to We have come to this conclusion from an examina-
approve of his continuing to supply these articles. lion of Messrs. Trotter? charges for similar articles
in Mr: Garnier's representation to their Lordships, supplied to General Nospitals, also, in those years,
after stating the grounds on which he claimed the and from the returns made by Messrs. Curtis and
right, under hit patent, to supply Surgical Instru- Clarke, corn-fiictors, and Messrs. Harrisons, bottle-
ments (which we have before alluded .to) he insists merchants, of the prices Which similar articles in their
further, a that he has an equal right to be paid foe different trades bore during the same period. It must
them in the same manner as his predecessors have he observed, that in Messrs. Trotter? course of deal-
been paid, that is, by charging the Instruments to ings with Govurnment they have been used, at least
Government at a fair profit, as between tradesman during 1804, calculating on a year's credit to Go-
and consumer, and not by a net commission on the vernment, to charge about 20 per cent. on the money
first cost of the commodity," which it Appears •it had. price of the articles furnished by them ; yet their
• been proposed to allow him, to the extent of ten per charge for hospital sheets is seven shillings and four-
',cent. Mr. Gamier added, a that such a plan, if pence, at the time that the Apothecary General's
adopted, would have been attended With consider_ charge is ten shillings ; and, 'tvhen the Apothecary
able loss to Government ; for that then the Instru- General charges eleven-pence per pound for Musco-
meats must have'been bought on the same credit as:rado-sugar, Messrs. Trotters charge only eight-pence
Government took of him ; and that Savigny and per pourid : their charge for corks is two shillings
Evans were the only two persons in the trade compe. and four pence per gross ; the Apothecary' General's
tent to give credit ;" and he alleges that these persons six shilltngs ; 'he Charges for bottles at the rate of
charge to him on an annual credit Would have ex- sixty shillings per gross fOr quarts, 'and fifty-six shil-
ceeded bv• ten per cent. What Mr. Gamier charged, lings rer trOas:fOrpitits, at the time when, we learn
*bids; iddii to the proposed commission, would : from Mesits.:Thirrisosts„ the ' fun were said by; them