From Houghton R. J, Priestley M.R. A historical guide to delftware
and Victorian ointment pots — 1730–1950. ointment.pots@virgin.net 2005
Reekie’s Ointment, c1901 |
Between 1820 and 1930 there was a tremendous rise, and then
decline, in the use of all manner of quack medical products, especially
ointments as a cure for skin complaints of almost any nature. The rise
was largely brought about by the ability to transfer print on to the
small ceramic containers that held the ointments and the earlier tin-glazed
delftware containers, on which the name of the druggist had been hand-painted,
were replaced by millions of mass-produced pots. These feature details
of the ailments common to many in Victorian England which,
apparently, could be remedied by a small application of the contents.
The Victorians saw the rapid development of an urban industrial economy
with high concentrations of populations in major cities and a subsequent
rise in the transmission of diseases. The time was right for some to exploit
the ignorance of many workers. The proliferation of cheap mass-production
methods, as well as increasingly sophisticated advertising, helped support
the growth of many new industries to serve and target this lucrative market.
In 1851, UK medicine firms, including ointment makers, had a combined turnover
of some £250,000 that grew spectacularly throughout the remainder
of the century. In 1884, according to Chemist & Druggist, there were
between 800 and 1,000 makers of patent remedies producing up to 5,000
different medicines with some 19,000 people who were employed by the industry
in manufacturing and distribution.
Many ointments were based on old remedies or at least attempted to engender
the feeling that the recipe had been passed down through generations. Brand
names, such as Mother Ashton’s, Mrs Croft’s, Mrs Hulse’s
and Mrs Gares’s, were used to personalise and reinforce the belief
that each generation had a secret formula that could cure all ills.
The sale of ointment or salves was not limited only to chemists or druggists.
Bicycle manufacturers, drapers, newsagents and even a school master are
known to have sold ointments. The trade directories (eg, Kelly’s)
are full of examples of little known proprietors, such as William Spencer,
who ran the Butchers’ Arms in Lydiard Millicent, Swindon, in 1889
and who also advertised Spencer’s Ointment “for burns, scalds
and every description of sores and skin disease”. Another, Sarah
Ann Andrew, is listed in 1879 as a salve and ointment maker but also a
coal dealer at 64 Broad Lane, Sheffield, while, in 1822, A. G. Sloan of
12 China Lane, Manchester, was a shoemaker and also
proprietor of the Family Black Salve.
There was initially no legislation to control the claims made by manufacturers
about the powers of their ointment.However, all medicines in the UK were
subject to tax. A government duty of 1½d (one and half pence)
was levied on all ointments retailing at 1/– (one shilling) hence
most sold for 1/1½d. As medicine advanced, so the medical profession
began to understand how damaging many of the false claims were to it.
Most ointments contained little in the way of healing ingredients and many
could have done more harm than good. Some may have had a placebo effect
or provided a protective waxy coverings for wounds or sores but, in the
main, the primary constituent for most ointments was fat. The included
various forms of animal fat such as hogs’ lard or beef fat, as well
as beeswax and petroleum jelly, or combinations of these. The analysis
of one of the most popular ointments of the Victorian era, Dr Roberts’ original
Poor Man’s Friend, showed that it
consisted chiefly of soft paraffin (87.9 per cent) used to carry the active
ingredients: beeswax (7 per cent), mercurous chloride (3.5 per cent), lead
acetate (1.2 per cent) and ferri sesquioxide. Similar analysis of Brown’s
Herbal Ointment showed it was essentially petroleum jelly.
Changes
From Houghton R. J, Priestley M.R. A historical guide to delftware
and Victorian ointment pots — 1730–1950. ointment.pots@virgin.net 2005
Taylor’s Healing Ointment, 1882–96 |
Significant advances were made in medicine in the second half of the
19th century. These were both scientific and, importantly, regulatory.
The 1858 Medical Act established the General Medical Council and the
Medical Register, therefore distinguishing, for the first time, between
qualified and unqualified medical practitioners. The British Medical
Association took a leading role in influencing legislation on public
health matters, including its exposure of quack medicine and its campaign
in 1909, exposed the contents of many of the “secret” remedies.
For example, it published “Secret remedies — what they
cost and what they contain”. This focus initially resulted in
many proprietors moderating their exaggerated claims. For example,
the words “cure of” were usually replaced by the less specific “treatment
of” or “best application for”. Ultimately, however,
the increased scrutiny led to the demise of many products — several
proprietors were prosecuted for making fraudulent statements.
The 1914–18 war was a watershed for many manufactured products,
and pottery containers were quickly replaced by cheaper forms of packaging,
such as tins. A few companies continued to use ceramic pots into the
1920s but further improvements in labelling (of glass) and the introduction
of collapsible metal tubes ended their use by the 1930s.
Ointment pots that date from the Victorian and Edwardian periods are
now antiques. Their relatively small size and their significant variety
make them collectable. In addition, many collectors marvel at the wild
claims made on them. Such claims are often found in old advertisements,
or on embossed bottles, but none is more effectively recorded than on
the glazed, transfer-printed, ointment pots of the period. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal