REASONS On BEHALF of the APOTHECARIES BILL: Humbly Submitted to the Consideration of this present Parliament. In Answer to the City of London's Petition against the said Bill.  

The Considerations that induced the Apotheca●ies to move for an Exemption from public Offices.  THE Apothecaries finding it very inconsistent, not only with their particular private Interest, but Dangerous to their respective Patients, in Person to serve those several Parish, Ward, and Leet Offices, and on Juries( to all which they are subject) in that they then could not so well attend either in their respective Shops for the making and duly preparing their Medicines, nor on their Patients whilst either the Doctor gave his Prescriptions, or the Circumstances of their Patients required it. They did therefore generally Fine to be exempted from such Personal Services.  
But perceiving that the Charge of such Exemptions was very Expensive, and knowing that the Profession of the Common and Civil Law( in All their Branches) were excused from such Services, and that the Physitians and chirurgeons were by particular Acts of Parliament discharged from the like; and believing( and hoping to prove) that the Re●sons for the same Exemptions of Apothecaries were as great( if not greater) than for the Discharge of any of those, They did therefore( with all humble Submission) endeavour to procure a Bill for that purpose; the reasonableness whereof may appear from these following( amongst many other) Considerations.  

Reasons for the Bill.  First, The Apothecaries time is so very precarious, that they have no certain Vacation, no not in any Hours of the Night,( appointed by God and Nature for a general Rest) for being often called upon at all times, both Night and Day, either to prepare Medicines, according to the Doctors Prescriptions, or to attend on their Patients on some particular Distempers, and upon all occasions on the Poorest sort, who have scarce any Money for Food, and none for Physicians or physic; for which reason it is not, with humble submission,  
Secondly, Consistent with the common Benefit of Mankind that the Apothecaries should in P●rson serve in either of the before O●fices or Duties; for whilst they attend such Services, their Personal Attendance, either in their Shops for the sudden preparing some particular Medicines, or on their Patients upon some certain Exigencies, or on the Poorest sort, upon all, may and often doth appear so very requisite, that the neglect thereof would be the Loss of the Patient.  
Thirdly, The Reason given by the 32. H●n. 8. cap. 40. for the exempting Physicians from those several Duties, holds( with due submission) in a greater degree good for the granting Apothecaries the same Immunities.— The preamble of that Statute in substance sets for●h, That by the then Law, Physicians were Compelled to Serve in the before-mentioned Offices, by reason whereof, they could not give their Personal Attendance on the Nobility, Gentry, and Commonalty, in their respective sickness, as the exigencies of the Sick did necessary require.— Now considering how often the Apothecary Attends the greatest in Quality when Sick, and all Ranks and Degrees of men in their respective Distempers, and to the Poorest he must either in Charity not only go, but give his Medicines, or they would Perish. It is supposed to need no proof that the Apothecaries Attendance on the Sick ( in All cases considered) takes up much more of his time, than the Physicians spend upon the like occasions.  
Fourthly, Not only Lawyers, but all Attorneys and Clerks of Offices are excused by Common Law from serving in either of the before Instances: And if it so happen that any Attorney or Clerk either is( or stands in danger of being) chosen to any of those Offices, the Court to which he belongs grants him a Writ of Privilege( directed to such whom it may concern) Commanding them that they excuse such Attorney or Clerk not only from that particular Office to which they endeavour to choose him, but from all other public Offices; and that they choose some other fit Person to those Employments. The Reason given in such Writs of Privilege, is to this effect; viz. That those Persons by the Duty of their Professions being obliged to attend that Court to which they belong, in the Prosecution or Defence of their respective Clients Causes, it would extremely tend to the common Prejudice of the King's Subjects, that those men should be called off from such their profession, to those common Offices that any else can as well serve. Now the Preservation of Property, and the procuring Satisfaction for Damage sustained( for which the Lawyers Profession is instituted) cannot( in the nature of things considered) justly claim greater Privilege than this Bill would enact for such whose Employments it is to remove Sicknesses and Pain( two Adversaries more dreaded by, and hurtful to Mankind, than any the Attorneys can defend us from). Of all Natural Evi●s, Pain and Sickness( next to Death) are esteemed the greatest; nay, sometimes in exchange for those this is desired. Health( of all Natural Blessings the most valuable) Mankind are daily preserved in, and recovered to, by Physical Prescriptions; and therefore a Profession instituted for those most Noble and Inestimable Purposes, may reasonably hope for all those proper Encouragements and reasonable Exemptions.  
It is commonly objected by the Petitioners, That the Apothecaries may be excused from their Personal Services by their Fining( or procuring a Deputy); which Fines the Petitioners pretend are expended in the Relief of the Poor, or some other public Services.  
Were those Fines employed to the Purposes pretended, there then were greater Reasons for Fining, than now in truth there is: For in fact that which is here said to be laid out in those Charitable and public Services, is generally( in the greatest part thereof) spent upon the Rich[ the V●stry-men]; who in Luxurious Treats defraud both Poor and public. But farther, It is humbly conceived, That  

☞  Wheresoever it is not consistent with the Interest of the public, that a Profession should( in PERSONAL SERVICES) be encumbered with those common Offices( most of which any man else may as well serve) There it is against all Equity, th●t the Profession should Fine.  
And this last Objection will appear the more unreasonable, if what is naturally implied therein, be plainly expressed ( viz.)  
T●a● it is fit this Prof●●sion should pay their ●ines, that they may the better serve the Common Interest of Mankind. The last Objection holds as strong against Lawyers, Attorneys, Physicians, and Surgeons, all which are now exempted, for they may Fine off, or find a Deputy; but for the Considerations before-mentioned, neither is thought reasonable.  
The Petition pretends, That should this Bill pass into a Law, the City of London will be Greatly concerned in the Consequences thereof.  
I must confess this Petition holds true in the Letter, but not in the Intention of the Petitioners; for the Health of those that are well( in the Prevention of Sickness) and the R●covery of such as are Sick, are Greatly concerned that this Bill should be enacted: But I am too short-sighted to foresee the least( comparative) Ill Consequences to the City by the passing this Bill. Had I not red the Bill, but was to judge the Prejudice, from this Petition, and the great Opposition that is thereby made, I could not guess less than 10000 l. per Annum would be ●he Loss this great and rich City would sustain by the passing this Bill. But when I reflect on the real Damage to be by the City sustained, if this Bill passes into an Act, I stand amazed at the Opposition. For there not being above 188 Apothecaries within the Precincts of London,( and so not two to a Parish, within the City Limits, there being 113 Parishes) the most this City would get by these mens Fining is not above a Hundred Pound per An. Communibus Annis; and consequently the Charge to the City would not exceed that Sum, if the desired Exemption was granted.  
And whether only the City Apothecaries should bear that Charge that they may the better serve the City in its Sickness, or the City in general who reap the Benefit of their Constant Services in their Prof●ssi n, must be Humbly submitted to the great Wisdom of this Honourable Parliament.  
The passing this Bill would be an ill President, and occasion other Professions and Trades to endeavour for the like Exemptions.  
There is not the least shadow of Reason for any other Profession or Trade( by Law not already freed from those Duties) to be exempted from those Offices; for if it so happen that any of those in their public Attendance neglect their Trade, the Prejudice is only to their private particular Interest; whereas by the Neglect of the Apothecaries in their Profession many of their Patients may perish.  
It is a Rule in Law, and grounded on the Reason of things, That every thing ought to be respected according to its Worthiness. Life and Liberty above the Possessions of men: Wherefore the Common Law having given( as before observed) Large Exemptions to a certain Profession engaged in the Defence of Property, 'tis reasonably hoped, That Statute-Law will in this Instance now grant( what for the like Cause in a less degree it hath formerly given) as great Privileges in order to the Preservation of Life.  
There is a standing common Maxim in Law, Ubi est eadem ratio, &c. Where there is the same Reason there ever is the same Law: Seeing therefore the Reason the Law gives for the Discharge of Physicians, Lawyers, &c.( viz. The General Interest of the public) concludes( with due Submission) much stronger for the Exemptions by this Bill desired, It is humbly hoped( notwithstanding the present Unreasonable Opposition) That the Bill under the present Consideration of this Honourable Parliament, may pass into a Law.  

A MODEST REPLY to the CITY-REASONS against the APOTHECARIES BILL. Humbly Submitted to the Consideration of this present Parliament.  
FIRST, It is alleged against the Bill, That the Ground thereof is False; viz. That the Apothecaries serving Parish, Ward, and Leet Offices, takes up so much of their Time, that they cannot perform their Trust in their Trade, or attend their Patients according to their Duty.  
Answer, This Suggestion had been indeed False, could those several Offices have been executed without employing any time therein.  
'tis suggested, That the Duty of( and the only Trust reposed in) the Apothecaries, is to make and compound their Medicines, and then to carry or sand them by their respective Servants( as other tradesman do).  
Answer, It were for the Ease and Interest of the Apothecaries to wish, that their Attendance were never required, and that the Necessity of the Case did never dispense with their administering physic without a Physician's Prescription: But it is so Notorious in Fact as it needs no Proof▪ That did not the Apothecaries in Charity Give to many both their Attendance and physic, some Thousands would perish, seeing their unhappy Incapacity can pay for neither.  
This is not alleged to pled for a Liberty of practise, but only to expose the evident Falsity of the Suggestion: And it's presumed, scarce any that oppose this Bill would employ that Apoth●cary who should only sand his Servants, refusing in Person to visit, whilst he was under a Physical Prescription.  
Secondly, Whereas it is suggested, That most of the Offices in the Bill mentioned may be executed by Deputy:  
Answer, This is equally Chargeable with Fining: And if the Personal Attendance of this Profession in those Offices is not consistent with the Common Interest, It's humbly submitted to the Great Wisdom of this Honourable House, Whether it's reasonable that the Professors should be thus charged; for that is in effect buying an Exemption for a General Good. Which( with all due Submission) it may be hoped this Honourable Parliament will now Grant without Price. As for Judge Rolls's serving an Office by Deputy, it was by the Recorder of London confessed to be done Ex Gratia.  
It is suggested, That the Apothecaries are Ambitious of several Offices of Honour and Profit, in which as much of their Time is spent, as in those they would now be exempted from.  
Answer, There are not above Eight Apothecaries Common-Council men; but One( at present) an Alderman's Deputy; but One in the Lieutenancy; not exceeding Two in Commission, in the City of London; neither of which was by them sought.  
As for their spending some Time in Electing Lord-Mayor, &c. those Elections are very seldom, and so but a small part of their Time therein spent: And being in them a voluntary Act, it's never done to the Neglect of their Patients. But it is quiter otherwise in those Offices, which positively require their Personal Service.  
Thirdly, 'tis Objected, That the Apothecaries have not the same Reasons for Exemptions as the Physitians, whose Personal Attendance is required, and they cannot act by Proxy.  
Answer, 'tis confessed that Physicians must Act in Person: And it is as manifest Truth that the Apothecaries do, and( as before observed) in a thousand instances must, or the Patients must perish. And which of these two spend most time on their Patients( with humble Submission) most deserve an Exemption.  
Some of the Learned'st and Eminent'st Physicians knowing the grounds of this Bill to be true, have industriously promoted the Passing thereof; for which the Apothecaries think themselves in gratitude bound to make their public acknowledgement.  
Fourthly, 'tis asserted that the Fines for Offices by Act of Common-Council are forbid to be applied to Feasting, &c.  
Answer, This very Prohibition proves the before-common Abuses of those Fines, and it can plainly be proved, that notwithstanding that Act( in the greatest part of them) they are still misspent in luxurious Treats.  
Fifthly; As for the Universal Exemption of all Apothecaries throughout the Kingdom by those Reasons complained of.  
Answer, Upon first reading this Bill, the grounds thereof, and the benefits thereby, were thought so reason●ble and advantageous, that a worthy Member of the House moved the Exemption might extend to all Parts of England. This motion was so well approved of, that the Bill was immediately altered to its now latitude.  
Sixthly, 'tis Objected, That the present Exemptions from Offices are already too many, and that such Immunities tend to the great Oppression of the Subject, especially the poorer sort.  
Answer, There are not above Three hundred thirty seven Apothecaries within the Bills of Mortality; and modestl● speaking, there are One hundred thirty three thousand houses; so that there is but one Apothecary to Four hundred Families, and above Two thousand persons to an Apothecary within those Limits. And how very Oppressive the desired Exemption would prove to so many( which in the Charge of Fines would not come to above 100 l. per Ann. Communibus Annis) deserved the Consideration of the Objectors before they had made this groundless suggestion. And whereas these Gentlemen allege that the Poorer sort will be most grieved by Passing this Bill: It's humbly conceived( for the Reasons before alleged) That those will receive th● greatest Benefits by the Passing thereof.  
Now whether the Apothecary's Profession Only should be charged with this 100 l per 〈◇〉 Fines for their Exemption or the O 〈…〉