Articles - The Bottles of Northrop & Lyman, A Canadian Drug Firm

Articles

The Bottles of Northrop & Lyman, A Canadian Drug Firm

Catherine Sullivan
Parks Canada

Les fouilles sur les sites de la fin du XIXe siècle au Canada ont souvent livré des flacons de médicaments frappés du nom de la Northrop & Lyman Company. On sait très peu de choses sur cette entreprise, même si l'on peut en déduire la réussite par le nombre de flacons portant sa marque qui se retrouvent dans les collections archéologiques et autres. Elle semble avoir été en activité de 1854 à 1980 environ, comme pharmacie desservant le marché local d'abord, puis comme grande société pharmaceutique réputée sur le plan national et international. Elle fut, à une certaine époque, l'un des plus gros fournisseurs de médicaments brevetés dans le Dominion. La présente étude constitue un premier examen des bouteilles de la Northrop & Lyman; l'histoire de l'entreprise, ses méthodes de commercialisation et la publicité consacrée au produit servent de contexte et de cadre de référence. Il est à espérer que cette étude permettra de reconnaître d'autres contenants, flacons en verre ou en autres matières, de la Northrop & Lyman.

Medicine bottles embossed with the name of the Northrop & Lyman Company are often excavated on late nineteenth-century Canadian sites. Despite the success that can be inferred from the number of marked bottles in archaeological and other collections, little is known of this company. It appears to have been in business from 1854 to about 1980, beginning as a retail drugstore serving a local market and becoming a large pharmaceutical firm with a national and international reputation. The company was at one time one of the biggest dealers in patent medicines in Canada. This study is an initial examination of Northrop & Lyman bottles, with company history, marketing, and product advertising included as background and context for the containers. It is hoped that more Northrop & Lyman containers, glass bottles, and bottles in other materials will be recognized as a result of this research.

Introduction

1 By the early years of the twentieth century, it was clear that Parliament intended to create legislation "regulating the sale and manufacture in Canada of proprietary medicines, and the advertisement thereof."1 The result, Bill 146, ratified as the Proprietary or Patent Medicine (PPM) Act, directed that manufacturers, or Canadian agents acting as manufacturers, be licensed, that secret-formula remedies be registered and ingredients disclosed to the Ministry of Inland Revenue, that substances such as cocaine and alcohol be restricted or removed altogether from patent medicines, and that the presence of other substances be noted clearly on the bottle wrapper.2

2 The need for national patent medicine legislation had been felt for many years, not only in Canada, but in Britain and the United States; an argument advanced in the Senate to hasten passing of the bill was that Canada was "behind the rest of the civilized world on this question of drugs."3 However, the nature of the drug trade in Canada had changed remarkably over a number of years. Writers for the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal lamented the state that a profession in pharmacy had reached since the days when clerks (apprentices) gained practical experience in pharmacy through attendance at mortar and pestle.4 In 1905, Parliament ordered an investigation of the drug and proprietary medicine trade in Canada, headed by A.E. Du Berger.5 His report, Sessional Paper No. 125, 5-6 Edward 7, 1906, identified the key role played in Canada's drug trade by large pharmaceutical and patent medicine manufacturers and wholesale distributors. A long-practising pharmacist himself, Du Berger found that the pharmacist had to a large extent become merely an intermediary between drug manufacturers and the consumer: "Nowadays, it is very seldom that we can meet with a retailer who himself, manufactures the pharmaceuticals he has to sell his customers."6 Hence, druggists relied on wholesale drug manufacturers, who unfortunately operated in Canada with no other standards for their behaviour than those self-imposed:

Each manufacturer assumes to be a law to himself and spends a great deal of money and energy to convince the medical profession [physicians and pharmacists] that his brand of goods is the best — not because his brand corresponds with authoritative standards, but on the ground that he has a standard of his own which he does not divulge..., and which is far better than the standards of his competitors.... It is the bad faith of some of the manufacturers that is most to be feared.7

3 Du Berger found many examples of bad faith regularly practised by wholesale distributors in supplying raw drugs and preparations to pharmacists. Wholesalers did not always verify the quality and purity of raw drugs imported in bulk and sold in smaller quantities, did not follow an approved formulary, were not obliged to submit their preparations to inspection and often would not admit to being the manufacturer by neglecting to disclose their name on the labels of their preparations. Pharmacists were forced to deal with adulterated raw drugs and medicines, preparations with recognized medical names differing from published authority in strength, quality, or purity, wood alcohol substituted for part or all of the ethyl alcohol called for, and duplications of standard preparations sold under different names. Pharmacists were not always aware of product contents and could not advise customers on proper usage of preparations as they had been trained to do.

4 Of proprietary or secret-formula remedies, that is, patent medicines, Du Berger noted that anyone, no matter his credentials, could make, package, advertise, and market anything as a medicine. He particularly named as dangerous, advertising addressed to the public that exaggerated the seriousness of fairly common symptoms and made false claims about remedies' contents and actions, the presence of substances that become dangerous by accumulation in products intended for constant use, alcoholic content so high that some patent medicines could be substituted for beverages, and the creation of narcotic habits from long-term use of proprietary products.

5 Thus,it was the manufacturing aspect of the drug trade that Parliament sought to regulate. The act affected all manufacturers of medications for internal human use prepared without a doctor's direction for over-the-counter sale, including practicing pharmacists, individual proprietors, and large manufacturing concerns. As this study will show, at the time the act was passed, Northrop & Lyman was operating as a manufacturer and wholesale dealer in patent medicines and other products, many of which the company manufactured itself. The partnership had existed for almost half a century, the business changing in nature as the firm grew in size. Whether Northrop & Lyman dealt with its clients as Du Berger found that others of its type did is not known and has not been investigated in this study. The focus of the present paper has been the identification and dating of bottles, mainly for archaeologists. Archaeological specimens have been used sparingly, however, because of their fragmentary state and often poor preservation; this study has relied for bottle information mainly on examples in private collections.

6 Northrop & Lyman bottle labels show that company products began to record a PPM Act registration number, we can assume, in 1909. Originally, this number could be used to register as many products as the proprietor wished — figures 9a and 11 show bottles of different products with the same number — and it is possible that all Northrop & Lyman products at one time carried the same number.8 However, the 1919 amended act required that each product be registered separately, and it is likely that a large number of new registration numbers were created as a result of that amendment.9

7 The company's twentieth-century operations have not been examined to a large extent, and many aspects of its nineteenth-century business are also largely unknown at this time. However, a history of the Northrop-Lyman Company is outlined, the individual retail druggist has been established as the company's main client, and many company products and their containers have been identified.

History

8 The Northrop & Lyman company began business in Newcastle, Canada West, in 1854, as Tuttle, Moses & Northrop.10 The original concern, a retail drug store, was a branch of the American drug firm of Tuttle & Moses, of Auburn, N.Y. By 1857 the company had become Northrop & Moses, wholesale and retail druggists, dealers in patent medicines, trusses, etc. Between 1859 and 1862 John Lyman joined Henry Northrop, buying out Tuttle and Moses, and the partnership was renamed Northrop & Lyman. Northrop & Lyman relocated in Toronto in 1874, apparently because their wholesale patent medicine business required better shipping facilities than were available in Newcastle. Their first address in Toronto, at 40 Scott Street, seems to have been simply a warehouse, but the company moved to a larger facility, with laboratory, at 2111 Front Street West about 1879." By the late 1870s, Northrop & Lyman were being called the largest dealers in patent medicines in the Dominion.12 In 1883, Northrop & Lyman incorporated as manufacturers and dealers in drug with a capital of $100,000; the partners in the company were Henry Stephen Northrop president, John Lyman vice-president, John H. McKinnon secretary, Etna Dene Howe, and George Van Nostrand. Official positions in the newly organized company do not appear to have been assigned to the two junior members. However, Etna Howe was John Lyman's nephew and a bookkeeper by profession, as was John McKinnon, and G. Van Nostrand was a commercial traveller.13 Directories do not note John McKinnon's, Etna Howe's, or G. Van Nostrand's connections with Northrop & Lyman prior to incorporation; however, John McKinnon, bookkeeper, is listed in Toronto city directories in the 1870s and Etna Howe had been a member of John Lyman's household in Newcastle in 1871.

9 Henry Northrop died in Toronto in 1893. Since Northrop & Lyman was a joint stock company, no other change was necessary than to elect a new president and fill the other offices that became vacant as a result.14 John Lyman, who had resided in Syracuse, N.Y., since about 1889, became president and the other officers in the company advanced one position.15 When John Lyman died in Syracuse in 1904, John H. McKinnon became president, Etna Howe vice-president, and George Van Nostrand secretary, but, although both Henry Northrop and John Lyman had died, the company did not change its name.

10 In April 1904 the company's building on Front Street was completely demolished by a fire that destroyed Toronto's wholesale and light manufacturing district. Northrop & Lyman Company occupied temporary quarters during the construction of a new building at 86-88 Richmond Street West until March 1905.16 About 1917, the company again relocated at 462, 464, and 466 Wellington Street West; Northrop & Lyman's most recent address was 2020 Elles-mere, Toronto.17

11 The company's officers were periodically reorganized after the deaths of the two principals, but radical change does not appear to have typified the company. Of the other three original members, nothing is known of G. Van Nostrand after 1906. However, Etna Howe and John McKinnon exchanged positions as president and vice-president, Etna Howe remaining as president until his death in 1920, by which time John McKinnon was no longer with the company. A newer member, William Fraser, clerk with Northrop & Lyman since 1897 and eventually Etna Howe's son-in-law, served as treasurer under Etna Howe and then secretary and vice-president under Etna's son, Herbert J. Howe. By 1914, Northrop & Lyman had become a Howe family business, for in that year we find M.B. Howe, possibly Etna's wife Martha, director, Herbert J. Howe secretary, Lyman P. Howe clerk and Harold D. Howe bookkeeper for the company. Herbert Howe's presidency began with his father's death in 1920 and continued until 1951. In that year the company was reorganized under the same company name, with Thomas A. McGillivray, formerly general manager for Lehn & Fink and before that of McGillivray Bros. Ltd., as manager.

12 The McGillivray connection with Northrop & Lyman may have been a family one, for a John R. McGillivray travelled for the company between 1895 and 1900, and John Lyman's will bequeathed $2,000 to a Tena McGillivray of Syracuse in 1904. During the mid-1960s, the company name was changed to Northrop-McGillivray. Its history from that point has not been traced, but Northrop-McGillivray seems to have been in business until at least 1980.18 Research on the company's twentieth-century operations has not been undertaken in any depth.

13 At its peak, the company was extremely successful, selling its products throughout Canada and in the West Indies, Newfoundland, South America and Australia. Both Henry Northrop and John Lyman, whose beginnings were humble, were wealthy men at the time of their deaths.

Advertising and Marketing

14 Henry Stephen Northrop and John Lyman began the drug business as commercial travellers for the wholesale firm of Tuttle & Moses of Auburn, N.Y.20 Since both men always listed their professions as merchants, it is not unreasonable to believe that neither had formal pharmaceutical training, and that both were more familiar with wholesaling than retailing. The choice of Newcastle in which to locate a retail outlet that became a wholesale business should be considered.

15 During the 1840s the value of farming land in the District of Newcastle increased steadily with a growing population of British immigrants interested in wheat farming. Towns and villages on navigable water routes were becoming populated business areas. Bond Head, a village and shipping place on Lake Ontario, relied for its services on the village of Newcastle, one-and-a-half miles distant in 1844. By 1851, Bond Head was considered to be a part of the village of Newcastle, and before 1857, Newcastle's amenities included a train station.21 The Canada Directory for 1864 describes Newcastle:

A thriving village and port of entry situated on Lake Ontario, in the township of Clarke, and county of Durham. It is also a station on the Grand Trunk Railway, and has a very good retail and some wholesale trade. There are three churches, a good grammar and several common schools in the place. It can also boast of a mechanic's institute with no mean library. Distant from Cobourg, the county town, 24 miles; Toronto 47 miles; and from Montreal, 286 miles. Daily mail with money order office. Population 1029.22

16 Thus, Newcastle had to recommend it a port and a train stop that guaranteed traffic through the town as well as the potential for shipping and receiving freight, proximity to suppliers in New York state, and an expanding local population.

17 The flourishing of the Northrop & Lyman partnership at the early period has been credited to the indefatigable efforts and personal qualities of John Lyman, who travelled extensively for his company and established friendly relations with his customers. Obituaries for John Lyman and for Henry Northrop suggest that the former was better known in the trade than his partner, and the tasks involved in the business may have been divided into public and low-profile responsibilities. In addition to John Lyman, others of the five adult males employed at Northrop & Lyman's Newcastle factory in 1871 may have been engaged in commercial travel for the company; census records for that year show a commercial traveller named William Farewell (?) in Henry Northrop's household.23 Personal contact with clients in the company's early days can be assumed to have been an important feature of the business. In fact, anecdotes concerning John Lyman's personal appearance, his early life, his endowments to hospitals on behalf of his three dead children, and details of his bequests to charities, all considered newsworthy at the time of his death in 1904, suggest that personal contact was a feature of the business throughout its most successful period.24

18 The role of Toronto as a trading centre during the mid-nineteenth century has been discussed by Middleton and Landon. Their observations suggest that operating out of Newcastle would have become increasingly disadvantageous. Toronto, competing with Montreal for the business of newly established settlements in Ontario, was developing as a main distributing area at the expense of smaller towns. Many country merchants preferred to select goods personally from the warehouses of their wholesalers, and businesses located in Montreal and Toronto were favourably placed for selling to visiting buyers.25 Northrop & Lyman appear to have followed this pattern, in that their original establishment in Toronto, on Scott Street, was a warehouse. The factory in Newcastle may have continued to supply their products before acquisition of the Front Street laboratory about 1879. Front Street was an excellent business address in an area that was to become the wholesaling and light manufacturing district in Toronto. In 1904 the area was completely destroyed by fire. A late nineteenth-century description of their Front Street facility calls the laboratory "one of the largest and best equipped in Canada." It also notes that seven travelling salesmen were connected with the company at that time, and that the company's name and reputation were recognized by the trade.26 The last item is interesting, since it suggests the market to which Northrop & Lyman advertising was addressed.

19 The highly competitive, nineteenth-century patent medicine business forced all levels of merchants involved — manufacturers, druggists, jobbers, and wholesalers — to vigorous and imaginative advertising.27 Although an extensive search of daily journals has not been undertaken, a general impression has been formed that Northrop & Lyman did not advertise their products to the public in this way. Northrop & Lyman did advertise in directories and gazetteers, but individual products are not celebrated in these sources, and these advertisements are fairly discreet, consisting of a few lines naming the company, type of business, and location.28 Northrop & Lyman's advertising seem to have been directed at the druggist through the company's commercial travellers, trade papers, and by lending company support to druggist's interests, such as the cut-rating issue.29

20 During the 1890s, Ontario pharmacists waged war with dry goods store owners who were expanding their trade to include patent and proprietary drug products. One of the leaders in this direction was the T. Eaton Company of Toronto, which not only sold the goods that druggists considered their exclusive sphere, but also undercut listed prices by 20 to 25 per cent. The Northrop & Lyman Company was among the group of "druggists' friends" who agreed not to deal with the cut raters, although Northrop & Lyman goods were sold through Eaton's mail order catalogues, presumably having been supplied by other wholesalers. The threat posed to druggists by cut-rating can be demonstrated with prices for one of Northrop&& Lyman's leading products, Canadian Hair Dye:

Lyman Bros. & Co., wholesalers (ca. 1909) $3.50/doz.
Northrop & Lyman suggested retail price (1904) .50 each
T. Eaton catalogue (1905) .35 each30

The conflict seems not to have been resolved formally, but catalogues show that Eaton's increasingly replaced brand name products with its own goods, and T. Eaton medicine bottles on Canadian sites and in other types of bottle collections are not rare.

21 The independent druggist was an important aspect of Northrop & Lyman's marketing, receiving much of the company's advertising attention. Northrop & Lyman almanacs, such as one dating from 1886, include testimonials indicating that druggists were in the habit of diagnosing illnesses and complaints and of recommending specific products to their customers.31

22 Patent medicine almanacs and their impact in the American household have been discussed by Young, who dates one of the earliest, on behalf of Bristol's Sarsaparilla, to 1844.32 Four Northrop & Lyman almanacs have thus far been seen, from 1886, ca. 1887, 1902, and 1904.33 Since a year's calendar is a part of each almanac, Northrop & Lyman probably published a new almanac each year. These pamphlets were produced with the consumer in view; they contain information on a limited number of Northrop & Lyman's products, with a preamble concerning the symptoms and nature of various maladies, testimonials to the product's efficacy, said to be unsolicited, and usually an illustration of the package. The illnesses are those of the time: consumption, tetanus, blood-poisoning, worms, catarrh, and the public is admonished to have always on hand the means of combating sudden illness and accident. There is diversion in items of humour, puns, and the like, often cooking recipes, and a calendar of the year, including historical events and forecasted weather trends. The back cover usually has a space to insert the druggist's name.

23 In addition to almanacs, Northrop & Lyman advertised to the public through sample vials such as that illustrated in figure 2. We do not know whether samples were provided to the druggist or delivered to private homes by the company, although since other advertising was directed at druggists, it is more likely that the commercial travellers gave samples to the druggists for distribution to the public. Free product samples continue to be an aspect of pharmaceutical advertising and may have been used throughout the company's history. As in other areas of the study, a picture of Northrop & Lyman's twentieth-century operations is not complete and certain aspects from an earlier time are missing as well.

Fig.1. Advertisement from a Lyman, Sons & Co. Price Current, ca. 1906-09.This advertisement is an example of the use by Northrop & Lyman of smaller letters and parenthesis around the word Limited into the second decade of the twentieth century (compare with fig. 14). There are several errors in typesetting, the spelling of Eclectric Oil and the number of g's in Kellogg's, for example.Holloway's Corn Cure is an intriguing item. Thomas Holloway, an English tradesman who first marketed his ointment in 1838 and his pills soon after, secured widespread distribution for his goods, which included Holloway's Worm Confections and Holloway's Expectorant around 1868. However, there is no evidence at this point that Holloway made a corn cure; neither Holcombe nor the British Medical Association name it with Holloway's other products. Furthermore, advertisements in the Toronto Globe specify that packages for Holloway's pills and ointment included his London address and other particulars not mentioned in Northrop & Lyman's advertising for Holloway's products that they carried. It is tempting to suspect that Northrop & Lyman either bought or borrowed an established name to affix to one of their own products.19
Thumbnail of Figure 1Display large image of Figure 1
(Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RD-2212B.)
Fig. 2. Free sample vial used to advertise Persian Balm, private collection.Except for the paper label on this vial, there is no connection between it and the Northrop & Lyman company; other products of similar consistency could have been put into such a vial by any company or chemist. The vial stands 60 mm high, has a capacity of 8 ml, and the label indicates a distribution period in the twentieth century.Door-to-door and unsolicited mail distribution of product samples was forbidden by section 9 of the PPM Act in 1908. Discussions in the Senate indicate that the clause was intended to prevent young children swallowing poisons left on doorsteps. Whether dispensing of such toiletry items as this would have been disallowed by the act is not known.38
Thumbnail of Figure 2Display large image of Figure 2
(Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg no. RA-14520B; drawing: S. Laurie-Bourque.)

24 We know that Northrop & Lyman used broadsides to advertise specific products, advertised in trade journals such as the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, and purchased space in the pages of other wholesalers' catalogues (fig. 1).34 However, druggists' circulars, catalogues, and price currents put out on behalf of Northrop & Lyman products have not been located from either the nineteenth or twentieth centuries, and we do not know when the company began and stopped producing almanacs.

25 Two important elements in the company's early success were timing and experience. Canadian directories and business gazetteers show Northrop & Lyman to have been among the first of the large patent medicine dealers in Canada. In 1877, only two other companies were noted as specializing in patent medicines, whereas by the 1890s, Northrop & Lyman were in competition with several. The company's American parent drug firm had trained both John Lyman and Henry Northrop in the business; the Canadian company appears to have been up-to-date and to have adapted to trends in the drug trade. Northrop & Lyman's manufacturing facility, referred to in Newcastle as a factory, was called a laboratory in Toronto, a shift in the company's emphasis which seems to have paralleled one in the trade.35 The company's use of bottles marked with its name, beginning early in its history, probably added to the company's reputation; druggists interviewed in the early twentieth century were inclined to trust wholesale manufacturers who willingly acknowledged their own products to the public.36 However, many of the practices that contribute to Northrop & Lyman's good reputation with the nineteenth-century trade became law in the twentieth century under the conditions of the PPM Act of 1909.37

The Products

26 The company's stock in its retail drug store in Newcastle would have been simple or elaborate, depending on the ability to procure raw materials and prepared goods, and the druggist's enterprise in compounding his own mixtures. Since the original business was a branch store, we can assume that many of the goods sold in Newcastle were supplied by the parent company. Unfortunately, information on Tuttle & Moses of Auburn, N.Y. has not been located and their product line is not known. Other goods sold to the local population would have been prepared in the store to fill family prescriptions, and some articles would probably have been compounded on a larger scale, as was customary at the period, to save money. Neither Henry Northrop nor John Lyman appear to have had pharmaceutical training themselves, but Henry Northrop's household in Newcastle in 1861 included a 28-year-old, English-born druggist, whose hand-written name on the census record is not legible.39 It has been said that the druggist in attendance in Newcastle specialized in veterinary preparations, and the Darley brand name products that Northrop & Lyman carried at a later time may have originated with this druggist and been manufactured continuously from the company's early days (see Appendix A).40 Directory listings show that Northrop & Moses retained the retail operation of their business in 1857, but by the 1860s the company appears to be exclusively wholesale.41 By 1871 Northrop & Lyman operated a patent medicine factory in Newcastle that employed on average 11 people and paid yearly wages of $3000.42

Fig. 3. Two Glycerine Cream pot lids: a, diameter 80 mm, produced by Northrop & Lyman, private collection. (Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RA-12876B); b, diameter 60 mm, put up by Miller's, excavated by Parks Canada at Fort George Military Reserve, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario; cat. no. 12H5A1-3.We can assume that Northrop & Lyman made other generic-cosmetic and toilet preparations in addition to this one, although the company only advertised its secret formula remedies.
Thumbnail of Figure 3Display large image of Figure 3
(Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RA-14515B.)

27 The company's product line by the 1870s included goods for which they were Canadian agents, such as the Dr F. C. Ayer & Co. medicines — Ayer's Cherry Pectoral, Ayer's Sarsaparilla, Ayer's Ague Cure, Ayer's Hair Vigor—and a line that Northrop & Lyman manufactured themselves, the Canadian brand, Canadian Pain Destroyer and Canadian Hair Dye, beginning in the late 1860s, and Thomas' Eclectric Oil beginning about 1871. The manufacturing aspect of their business was increasing during the 1870s, and by the 1880s Northrop & Lyman were also either preparing or having made for them, Graves' Worm Exterminator, Northrop & Lyman's Vegetable Discovery and Dyspeptic Cure, Northrop & Lyman's Beef, Iron, and Wine, Copeland's Sweet Castor Oil, Star Dyes and Holloway's Corn Cure, and were agents for several products, including Dr. Trask's Magnetic Ointment, Dr. Kellogg's Catarrh Snuff and others.43 Appendix A, listing Northrop & Lyman products, has been compiled from company almanacs and advertisements in the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal. Although the Ayer products, sold by Northrop & Lyman before 1877, did not continue to be advertised by the company in later years, it is possible that Northrop & Lyman continued to carry them, since advertisements for other medicines and toiletries known to have been sold by the company have also not been seen. Parmelee's Cough Balsam, for example, was noted as one of the company's 10 leading products in the twentieth century (fig. 1), and Kellog's (sic) Pills bottles were manufactured by Dominion Glass Company before 1926 (see table 1); Northrop & Lyman advertisements were not found for either of these products. Northrop & Lyman carried other goods of which we have no advertising record, including dozens of standard patent medicines, bay rum, perfume, ointments, elixirs, etc. Their product line probably amounted to a full complement of druggists' goods.

28 Some idea of what this involved can be gained from nineteenth-century British, Canadian, and American pharmaceutical trade journals, such as The Chemist and Druggist, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal and The Druggists' Circular, with portions of each issue devoted to recipes for items that druggists might need to compound either on a regular basis or less frequently. The editor of The Chemist and Druggist, a British trade paper, compiled a particularly varied formulary in response to requests for such a work by subscribers to the journal. Originally published in 1898, MacEwan's Pharmaceutical Formulas: A Book of Useful Recipes for the Drug Trade went through several editions, three of them in its first year of printing.44 His formulary of proven, oft-requested recipes and notes on modern packaging and display indicates that the business of the druggist had become very complex by the end of the nineteenth century. Included are procedures for concocting face powders, lotions, perfumes, lip salves, cordials, effervescent beverages, inks, veterinary preparations, agricultural specialities, cements, liquid glues and mucilage, fireproofing solutions, vermin poisons, household products, dental and other toilet preparations, and galenic remedies, among others. That this broad range of items was the domain of the druggist is confirmed by druggists' glassware catalogues of such firms as Whitall, Tatum & Co. of Philadelphia, which sold containers for all of these goods and could individualize some bottles by embossing the druggist's name on them.45

29 Not every druggist and dry goods dealer had time or inclination to make his own preparations so would have purchased many from pharmaceutical firms. Northrop & Lyman's lists of goods include most of these types of preparations with the exception of effervescent beverages: brand name hair and toilet products, animal remedies, liniments, tonics, cough syrups, ink powders and dyes; figures 3 and 13 show the class of generic goods that druggists could prepare using formularies or purchase in bulk — glycerine cream, castor oil, etc. In these items, Northrop & Lyman would have been in competition for sales, not only with the individual druggist, but with other drug houses — National Drug Co., Elliot & Co., Parke, Davis & Co., Davis & Lawrence, the T. Eaton Co. drug department, Lyman Brothers & Co., Henry K. Wampole, and others, all of whom sold their own versions of standard preparations — and with companies, such as the Seely Manufacturing Company and W.T. Atkinson & Co., that specialized in one type of goods, in this case, toiletries and cosmetics.

30 The Northrop & Lyman Company seems to have specialized during the twentieth century in insect repellents, such as Skeeter Skatter, and household products such as Lemmonia.46 Thomas' Eclectric Oil continued to be a Northrop & Lyman product and was also sold by Northrop-McGillivray (see fig. 6). As well, the company continued to add products to its line into the twentieth century, such as Douglas' Egyptian Liniment (fig. 14), a veterinary remedy. The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act of 1908, the details of which will not be discussed here, required that all products for sale in Canada be registered and a yearly registration fee paid.47 Unfortunately, although the PPM Act was revoked during the 1970s, the information is still considered protected by the terms and conditions of the original act, and is not available to the public. Accessibility to these records could provide the names of the products sold by this company, as well as the dates at which products were started and stopped.

The Bottles

31 Among the marketing devices used by patent medicine proprietors since the eighteenth century is distinctive packaging.49 The need to make a particular product recognizable to the consumer led in some cases to elaborate container shapes, such as Turlington's Balsam of Life. Advertising by the proprietor would then include a description or illustration of the package along with promotion of the product. Northrop & Lyman used personalized, marked bottles for their goods beginning in Newcastle, but appear not to have apprised the consumer that they did so. Instead, Northrop & Lyman's advertising in their almanacs attempted to fix in the consumer's mind, through written descriptions and illustrations, the appearance of the box or wrapper (fig. 4). Implicit in these descriptions is that the proper package, with the proprietor's signature, is the purchaser's only guarantee of the content's genuineness; explicit is that unscrupulous people will copy a good product and fool the unwary into purchasing the imitation by using a similar name and packaging. Occasionally, Northrop & Lyman provided a description of the medicine — Parmelee's Pills, for example, were gelatin-coated and covered with licorice flour to preserve and make them palatable — but shape, size and configuration of the glass bottles is not usually detailed in Northrop & Lyman's advertising literature.50

32 Northrop & Lyman began to use bottles embossed with their company name early in their history, probably during the 1860s. As far as we know, these bottles could have contained any of the products that the company was making before 1874 when it relocated in Toronto. Of the seven Northrop & Lyman Newcastle bottles that have been seen, none are empontilled, all are the same size, and, most significantly, none has been marked with a product name (fig. 5). While many Northrop & Lyman products are likely never to have been put into specialized product bottles, others had containers of specific design associated with them.

33 Once established as a product container, specialized bottle forms seem to have been retained over an extended period without substantial alteration to the shape. Some Northrop & Lyman products introduced in the 1860s and 1870s were put up in bottles made on Owens machines in the twentieth century (table 1); in many cases, the machine-made version resembled the hand-blown bottle. Thomas' Eclectric Oil bottles, for example, had the same form and general configuration from before the 1880s until a standard-shaped dispensing oval was adopted for the product some time around World War Ⅱ.51 Continuity of bottle form was also maintained for products acquired at a later period from other proprietors. Northrop & Lyman put Douglas' Egyptian Liniment into a container similar to one already associated with the product by its originators, P. Douglas & Co. (fig. 14). On the other hand, the Northrop & Lyman company had no control in the packaging of remedies for which they were agents, such as the Ayer products and Trask's Ointment (fig. 8).

34 For products that Northrop & Lyman owned, rectangular bottles, some with panels, seem to have been preferred. Thomas' Eclectric Oil, Graves' Worm Exterminator, Canadian Hair Dye, Northrop & Lyman's Beef, Iron, and Wine, Kellogg's Catarrh Snuff, and others were all put up in regular bottles. Embossing on Northrop & Lyman bottles varies with the item: Thomas' Eclectric Oil bottles have raised letters on all four sides; Graves' Worm Exterminator and Kellogg's Snuff are embossed on the two short sides only; Parmelee's Cough Balsam and the emulsion panel in figure 12 are embossed with only the company name; the castor oil shapes in figure 13 have no embossing at all.

35 A difficulty in dating Northrop & Lyman bottles is that the company's history spans the century between the general adoption of some significant hand-blown bottle-making tools, such as the snap case and the finishing tool, and the end of hand-blown bottle manufacture as a result of complete mechanization in the container industry. As well, different types of products are represented in Northrop & Lyman bottles. Dating can be undertaken, within fairly broad ranges, by the Northrop & Lyman company name styling and the location of the business, Newcastle having been used, it is supposed, after 1859-62 and before 1874. Between the time of the move to Toronto and the company's incorporation in 1883, NORTHROP & LYMAN TORONTO ONT appears to have adequately identified the company, COMPANY or its abbreviation, CO, having been added after incorporation in 1883. During the second decade of the twentieth century, Northrop & Lyman began to include LIMITED as part of the company name, embossing on older bottle moulds being altered to include the word or abbreviation of it. Figures 11 and 12 show bottles on which LIMITED or LTD has obviously been appended to an earlier name styling; in both cases, other specimens which pre-date the alteration have been seen. The Canadian Hair Dye in figure 7 has also been modified by the addition, the abbreviation having been squeezed into a space almost too small for it.

36 Updating the wording on an older hand mould would, no doubt, have extended its life into the twentieth century. However, table 1 shows that the Northrop & Lyman company purchased semi-automatic and Owens' machine moulds for many older patent medicine bottle types and discontinued others.52 If these medicines continued to be made and sold, it is probable that the company began to package them in personalized company bottles rather than specialized product bottles. In addition, table 1 shows a shift in Northrop & Lyman's personalized bottles from the panels and rectangles of the nineteenth century to an oval shape. The ten sizes of Nalco oval, including one with wide mouth, may have served the function that the bottles in figures 11, 12, and 13 had performed after 1883 and sometime before 1926. Unfortunately, a description of a Nalco oval has not been found, but Northrop & Lyman products obviously had market enough to justify the expense of mechanized private moulds.

37 The glass bottles illustrated in the following pages have been chosen for inclusion primarily because they were readily identifiable as Northrop & Lyman containers; many include the company name on the bottle, but others are associated with Northrop & Lyman by another brand name. Archaeological assemblages from Parks Canada sites, private collections, and the Reserve Collection held in Ottawa by Parks Canada's Interpretation Division provided the specimens. The representation of Northrop & Lyman bottles is surprisingly small, considering the implied volume of business during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but even less known are the containers used by Tuttle, Moses & Northrop and Northrop & Moses, if indeed, any such exist.53 Since this study's focus is on containers made of glass, those of other materials, such as ceramics (fig. 3), metal,54 and paper have not been considered here. However, it is expected that the products noted in appendix A in combination with the following list will help in the recognition of other Northrop & Lyman bottles, and this study is viewed as an initial history of the Northrop & Lyman company.

TABLE 1 Bottle moulds for Northrop & Lyman products in the dominion Glass Company's Hamilton factory, 1926
Thumbnail of Table 1Display large image of Table 1
SOURCE: Dominion Glass Company, "Inventory of Mould Equipment," an inventory of glassware moulds held at the Hamilton factory in 1926. NOTE: Miller and Jorgensen have suggested that the inventory from which this table was extracted may include moulds from as early as 1880, and many of these moulds might have been out of use for several years.55 However, Owens' machines came into production in Canada no earlier than 1907 and bottles with a capacity of less than six ounces could not be made on Owens' machines until 1909.56 The Inventory of Mould equipment from which this list was taken may include other Northrop & Lyman products not yet identified.
Fig. 4. Graves' Worm Exterminator promotion from Northrop & Lyman's Family Recipe Hook and Guide to Health, ca. 1887, p. 33.The detailed cut used here to represent the product is intended to familiarize readers with the carton or wrapper. No description of the bottle inside is given"48
Thumbnail of Figure 4Display large image of Figure 4
(Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RD-2146B.)
Fig. 5. Northrop & Lyman, Newcastle, Canada West, private collection.This bottle has a rectangular body, flat chamfered corners and one indented panel on which is embossed Northrop & Lyman's name and Newcastle address. Seven examples ranged in height from 133 to 140 mm; one measured for volume had a capacity of 72 ml. The specimens have been blown in a two-part mould, some with separate base part, some with post bottom bases, and finished by hand. The embossing, oriented shoulder-to-heel in each case is part of the bottle mould. It was probably used to contain any of the goods that were being produced by the company while in Newcastle, between about 1859-62 and 1874. The relocation in Toronto would have been advertised, and use of this bottle would not have been extended; it is dubious that many were produced after 1874. The shape does not appear to have been used as a general dispensing bottle in Toronto but was retained for Thomas' Eclectric Oil, the addition of embossing to the other three sides characterizing the bottle for that product.
Thumbnail of Figure 5Display large image of Figure 5
(Drawing: D. Kappler and S. Laurie-Bourque.)
Fig. 6a and b Dr. S. N. Thomas Eclectric Oil, a, from Fort George, Ont., Parks Canada, height 140 mm, cat. no. L9H8F3. (Photo; R.Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RA-14522B.); b, private collection.Thomas' Eclectric Oil has been in continuous production from about 1871 until recently. The Northrop & Lyman company appears to have been the sole distributor of the remedy in Canada, but it was made and sold by other drug firms in the United States, notably Foster, Milburn & Co., and Northrop & Lyman may have sold it in the U.S. and elsewhere. In many parts of the world this medicine was known as Canadian Healing Oil. Northrop & Lyman registered Dr. Thomas', Eclectric Oil under the terms of the PPM Act of 1908. The number 5520 was probably assigned to it after 1919. Until recently, the medicine has been available in Canadian drug stores, marketed either by Northrop-McGillivray after about 1967, or, latterly, by Pharmapak of Toronto.Essentially the same form as the Newcastle bottles in figure 5, this bottle embossed for Thomas' Eclectric Oil was used from at least the 1880s until after the 1920s. The shape is rectangular with flat chamfered corners and one recessed panel on a long side, on which is embossed the Northrop & Lyman name and address. Hand-blown examples were made in a two-piece mould with separate base part; the two-part cork finish seems to have evolved from one in which the lower element, formed in the bottle mould, was not well defined, to one with both elements clearly pronounced made by a finishing tool. The main shape differences between an early Eclectric Oil bottle embossed on the front NORTHROP & / LYMAN / TORONTO ONT., and later, machine-made Eclectric Oil bottles, are in a squaring of the arch on the panel and of the shoulders. Machine-made bottles have been seen with screw tops and with lug finishes. The bottle's capacity is 56-70 ml.As can be seen, embossing on a is on all four sides of the bottle, but differs from embossing on b in the absence of the PPM Act registration information, thought to have begun to be added to Eclectric Oil bottles beginning in 1920.57
Thumbnail of Figure 6Display large image of Figure 6
(Drawing: S. Laurie-Bourque.)
Fig. 7. Canadian Hair Dye, height 100 mm, excavated at Lower Fort Garry, Parks Canada, cat. no. 1K37A5-9.Canadian Hair Dye appears to have been introduced by 1886 and was considered one of Northrop & Lyman's ten leading products about 1909 (fig. 1). An end date for Canadian Hair Dye has not been found, but Eaton's still offered it in their 1929 catalogue.The bottle illustrated is a small-mouthed short Blake or oblong, a rectangular body with short, flat chamfered corners and short neck. There are no indented panels. Often the finish on a Blake is a patent lip, but the two-part finish on this bottle allows the contents to emerge gradually. The embossing, located on the short sides only, was part of the bottle mould, and not accomplished using plate moulds. Canadian Hair Dye bottles had a paper label on at least one long side. The rectangular shape is one that appears to have been favoured by Northrop & Lyman - of the bottles embossed with the company name, all have bodies with similar configuration. The bottle illustrated has a capacity of 60 ml and Canadian Hair Dye appears to have been sold in only one size. An inventory of bottle-making from 1926 (table 1) shows that Canadian Hair Dye bottles were being produced on Owens' machines by that date.Canadian Hair Dye is an example of a Northrop & Lyman proprietary product put up in bottles that identified the company as well as the contents. By the late 1880s, Northrop & Lyman claimed that Canadian Hair Dye had a "larger sale in Canada than all other Hair Dyes combined"; it seems to have been common practice during the nineteenth century for a manufacturer to assert universal popularity for his product as evidence of its value.58
Thumbnail of Figure 7Display large image of Figure 7
(Drawing: S. Laurie-Bourque.)
Fig. 8a and b. Trask's Magnetic Ointment: a, height 61 mm, private collection. (Drawing: S. Laurie-Bourque); b, Parks Canada Interpretation Division, cat. no. X-72-373-68.Trask's Magnetic Ointment was first introduced by either S. Bull in New York state in 1846 or by D. Ransom Company of Buffalo, N.Y., about 1845. According to Wilson & Wilson, the original ointment consisted of raisins and fine-cut tobacco mixed with lard, although the formula became more medicinal over the years. The nineteenth-century preoccupation with magnetic forces in effecting medical cures no doubt accounts for the name of this medicated ointment. By 1886 the proprietors of Trask's Magnetic Ointment were D. Ransom, Son & Co., and Northrop & Lyman were its Canadian agents.Bottle a is one of two common sizes for Trask's Ointment, the larger being longer in the body.59 It is square with flat chamfered corners and was made in a two-piece bottle mould. The wide mouth permits access to all parts of the container's interior. Its capacity is 30 ml. Packaging of this product(b) includes a cork stopper driven flush with the lip and covered with red wax or composition. A paper booklet surrounds the bottle and a wrapper that includes the view here, the name of the agent for Great Britain and Canada and S. Bull's signature keeps it in place.Northrop & Lyman's name does not appear on the package since the medicine was probably imported prepackaged for wholesaling and Northrop & Lyman had no control over the container. The company may have continued to sell this product after 1886, but Trask's Magnetic Ointment does not appear in their advertising after that date (see appendix A).
Thumbnail of Figure 8Display large image of Figure 8
(Photo: R Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RA-14518B.)
Fig. 9a and b Two Dr. J. D. Kellogg's brand name products: a, height 72 mm, and b, height 55 mm; both bottles are from Parks Canada Interpretation Division, cat nos. X.73.611.11 and X.73.73.68.Northrop & Lyman sold several products under the Dr. J. D. Kellogg name, all medicinal types as distinct from cosmetic or veterinary preparations. According to their advertising, summarized in appendix A, the company were agents for Kellogg's Snuff in 1886 and had become proprietors by 1904, but the label on u notes that the contents were prepared by Northrop & Lyman before 1883 Kellogg's Toothache Cure may have been a later addition to the company's product line; unfortunately it is one of the products for which Northrop & Lyman's advertising has not been found.Both a and b are hand-blown and have paper labels front and back. The label on b includes the PPM Act registration number, placing the bottle in the twentieth century, while the absence of the word company in the Northrop & Lyman name on a suggests that it predates 1883. Embossed on its two short sides DOCT / KELLOGG'S on one and SNUFF on the other, it could be this same bottle for which Dominion Class Company held a mouth-blowing mould in 1926 (table 1). The rectangular shape with flat chamfered corners that appears to have been favoured by Northrop & Lyman for its own products is repeated in these two bottles, although b, the later of the two, may be tending towards an oval, a shape that is thought to have replaced the rectangular for Northrop & Lyman products in the twentieth century (table 1)."60
Thumbnail of Figure 9Display large image of Figure 9
(Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RA-14082B; drawings: S. Laurie-Bourque.)
Fig. 10. Northrop & Lyman's / Vegetable Discovery / and Dyspeptic Cure, height 225 mm, private collection.Northrop & Lyman sold many products under the company name, some of which they advertised, such as this one; others they presented to the public without promotional literature. The distinction between the two groups seems to be that secret-formula remedies, or patent medicines, warranted advertising, whereas generic goods did not.This bottle is datable, by a paper label, to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (1883-1909). Appendix A shows that Northrop & Lyman advertised this product throughout that period. None of the Northrop & Lyman brand name products in appendix A are noted as being made by moulds held at Dominion Glass Company's Hamilton factory in 1926 (table 1). This hand-made bottle is rectangular with four indented panels and flat chamfered corners. The cork ring with which it was sold is in place in the stopper. It has a capacity of 400 ml.
Thumbnail of Figure 10Display large image of Figure 10
(Drawing: D. Kappler.)
Fig. 11. Parmelee's Cough Balsam, height 170 mm, private collection.The bottle is a hand-blown rectangle with four indented panels and a patent lip. It has a capacity of 125 ml. Embossing on the side opposite the paper label reads NORTHROP & LYMAN CO / LTD / TORONTO, the abbreviation LTD having been added to the original lettering. Embossing on a similar, unlabelled bottle in a private collection does not include this addition. The example here has a paper label with the PPM Act registration number for Parmelee's Cough Balsam, the same as the toothache cure in figure 9a, dating it to after 1909. It is not known when this product was added to the Northrop & Lyman line, nineteenth-century advertising for it has not been found.The paper label identifies the contents as Parmelee's Cough Balsam, but the shape could have been used for other Northrop & Lyman products as well. The second example of this type, referred to above, would date Northrop & Lyman's use of the style to any time after 1883. As the bottle in figure 5 was probably the company's personalized container at one period, this bottle may have performed as a Northrop & Lyman general product bottle after the move to Toronto. Figure 12 is another such bottle.The plain black on white label on this bottle is unremarkable in appearance. The box or wrapper in which it was contained is much more distinctive: deep red with black lettering in French and English, it advises that Parmelee's Cough Balsam is a compound of seven ingredients, unsurpassed for throat and lung troubles. The absence of a Parmelee's Cough Balsam bottle in the mould inventory in table 1 suggests that Northrop & Lyman never put this product into a specialized product container. A 4-oz. Nalco oval may have replaced the panel shape as the company's container later in the twentieth century, although since continuity and familiarity in packaging seem to have been important features of Northrop & Lyman's advertising and marketing, it is unlikely that the Parmelee's Cough Balsam box was altered even if the bottle changed.
Thumbnail of Figure 11Display large image of Figure 11
(Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. nos. RA-11516B and RA-14078B.)
Fig. 12. Northrop & Lyman bottle, height 208 mm, excavated at Coteau-du-Lac. Quebec. Parks Canada cat. no. 9 G141B1- 43.This is an emulsion panel, a form that includes a sloping shoulder for easy removal of viscous liquids such as cod liver oil. The illustrated specimen has been personalized for the Northrop & Lyman company by inserting a plate mould into a standard emulsion panel with mould number 290 on the base. It has a capacity of 210 ml (7 Am. fl. oz.). Beaver Flint Glass Works, Diamond Flint Glass Company, and Dominion Glass Company's Montreal and Toronto factories all offered 8 oz. emulsions with mould number 290. Urquhart shows two other Northrop & Lyman bottles very like this one, including the mould number, one has the word LIMITED added as on this one, the other was not altered.61 Thus, the Northrop & Lyman company began to use emulsion panel bottles sometime after incorporation in 1883 and continued to do so into the twentieth century.Unfortunately, we do not have a clear picture of the complete line of products carried by Northrop & Lyman Although the company advertised a portion of its patent and proprietary medicines through its almanacs and elsewhere, we know that Northrop & Lyman also manufactured their own versions of many standard preparations which they did not advertise in these sources, such as are shown in figures 3 and 13. This bottle could have been used for some of their standard drugs and/or for such specific products as their Emulsion of Cod Liver Oil and Hypophosphites.
Thumbnail of Figure 12Display large image of Figure 12
(Drawing: J. Moussent.)
Fig. 13a and b. Northrop & Lyman paper label bottles, a, height 210 mm, private collection; b, height 206 mm; Parks Canada Interpretation Division, cat. no. X-72.59.21.These two bottles are a familiar nineteenth-and early twentieth-century shape known as a flat castor oil. The form is distinguished by a rectangular unpanelled body, flat chamfered corners, long neck, and two-part finish with tapered lip.62 Both examples here are hand-blown and both have an embossed 35 on the base. Whereas the panel bottles in figures 11 and 12 have Northrop & Lyman's name embossed on them, these are stock castor oil bottles and have no embossing or inherent characteristics other than the paper label to tie them to the Northrop & Lyman company. By the wording on the paper labels, the two specimens here date to the same period as figures 11 and 12. The use of unpersonalized stock bottles may be explained by the generic nature of the contents - Spirits of Turpentine in one case and Castor Oil in the other.
Thumbnail of Figure 13Display large image of Figure 13
(Photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RA-14517B.)
Fig. 14. Douglas' Egyptian Liniment, height 133 mm with caps, private collection.Urquhart illustrates an amber-coloured oval glass bottle, with one indented panel, on which is embossed DOUGLAS' / EGYPTIAN LINIMENT / P. DOUGLAS & CO. / NAPANEE ONT. CAN. Another example in the same source is similar in appearance to the bottle illustrated here but without the paper label that names the Northrop & Lyman Company; base markings indicate that it was made by Dominion Glass after 1960.63 Unfortunately, the 1926 Dominion Glass mould inventory does not specify who owned the 4-oz. Douglas oval hand and Owen's moulds in their Hamilton factory (see table 1 ). Although we do not know when Northrop & Lyman acquired and began to manufacture this product, P. Douglas & Co. were in business until at least the second decade of the twentieth century, and Northrop & Lyman retained both the product name and the bottle shape used by the original proprietor. The Northrop & Lyman company name styling on this label, with the word limited as an intricate part of the company name, is thought to have been adopted during the twentieth century.
Thumbnail of Figure 14Display large image of Figure 14
(Drawing: D. Kappler; photo: R. Chan, Parks Canada, neg. no. RA-14519B.)

APPENDIX A

38 Northrop & Lyman advertised brand name products. Although the list includes products whose function is obvious from their names - household preparations, toiletries, veterinary medicines - the purpose of many of these goods is not known at present. Therefore, they have been arranged alphabetically rather than by type of article. The date of publication of the source in which the item occurs is noted across the top (Northrop & Lyman, Almanac, 1886, ca. 1887, 1904; Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, 1895, 1902; Lyman, Sons & Co. Catalogue, ca. 1909); the last column is of products for which no advertising has been seen. The type of packaging varies, and not all were contained in glass bottles.

* I wish to thank the following for providing material used in this study: Lois Logan, secretary to the president of National Drug Limited; Dr. Ernst W. Stieb, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto; Mr. & Mrs. Shorter; Mr. & Mrs. Thomson; Carl Fox; Christine Mosser and David Kotin, Canadian History Department, Metropolitan Toronto Library; William Ormsby, archivist of Ontario; Interpretation Division, Parks Canada, Ottawa; Deborah Trask, Nova Scotia Museum; Gerald Parsons, Onondaga County Public Library, Syracuse, NY.; Ann P. Barry, Gmnecticut State Library; George L. Miller, OliveJones.John Light, Ann Smith, and Karlis Karklins, Parks Canada, Ottawa. Elizabeth Jorgensen was a patient assistant in the tedious task of searching through directory listings, and Olive Jones and George Miller provided guidance.direction, and advice on a subject that was discouraging to research because of the difficulty in locating information.

NOTES
1 The need for national patent medicine control had been discussed for at least a decade before the turn of the century. See, for example, "Proposal to Place Patent Medicines under Dominion Government Control," Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, 27, no. 3 (October 1893): 31. The quotation in the text is from Canada, House of Commons Journals., XL1, Session 1906, 26 June 1906, p. 428.
2 Canada, Senate, Debates. 1907-08, Vol. 2, p. 1535. The act is to be found in Statutes of Canada. 1908, 7-8 Edward 7, c. 56, pp. 457-61.
3 Canada, Senate, Debates, 1907-08, p. 1641.
4 For example, "Hints on the Preparation of Pharmaceutical Elixirs," Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, 27, no. 9 (April 1894): 130-1; "The Passing of the Apothecary Shop," 29, no. 4 (November 1895): 46; "Merchant-Druggist," 29, no. 12 (July 1896): 171-72; "Another Ten Cent Abomination," 30, no. 12 (July 1897): 511; "Some Recollections of Pharmacy Twenty Years Ago," 31, no. 2 (September 1897): 74,77, all conclude that modern pharmacy compares unfavourably with the same profession in former times.
5 Canada, Parliament, Sessional Paper, No. 125, 5-7 Edward 7 1906.
6 Canada, Parliament, Sessional Paper 125, 1906, p. 6.
7 Ibid, p. 10.
8 Statutes of Canada, 1908, Section 2.
9 Canada, Parliament Acts, 9-10 George 5,c. 66, pp. 413-17, "An Act to Amend The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act."
10 The company history has been gathered from several sources: E.E. Campana, "The History of Northrop & Lyman" (term paper for Pharmacy 44, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, ca. 1952); obituaries for Henry Northrop and John Lyman in the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal 27, no. 5 (December 1893): 72 and 37, no. 7 (February 1904) 309; Syracuse Public Library, N.Y., Obituaries and Biographical Clippings of Residents of Syracuse 14 ( 1915-26), p. 303. Unfortunately, these sources disagree on specific dates. For example, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal has John Lyman in Newcastle in 1859, Syracuse newspapers in 1857. However, the Canada Directory for 1857-58, p. 470 does not have John Lyman listed in Newcastle, nor does the 1861 census for the inhabitants of Newcastle, PAC C-1017, but he is resident in Newcastle in 1862, according to Mitchell & Loomis, Grand Trunk Railway Gazeteer (Toronto, 1862), p. 204.
11 J. Timperlake, Illustrated Toronto Past and Present (Toronto, 1877), pp.299-300.
12 Consolidated Illustrating Co., Toronto, the Queen City of Canada. Illustrated, 1893. (Toronto 1893), p. 120; Classified Business Directory of Toronto for 1879 (Toronto: Might and Taylor, 1897), p. 367.
13 Letters Patent incorporating the Northrop & Lyman company, dated 18 August 1883, PAC, microfilm C-4011-12, libra 93, f. 56. John Lyman's sister, Dorothy C. Lyman, married P. Dean Howe in 1846, Lyman Coleman, Genealogy of the Lyman family in Great Britain and America (Albany, N.Y.:J. Munsell, 1872), p. 280; Globe (Toronto). 14 January 1904, refers to Etna D. Howe as John Lyman's nephew. "
14 Death of Mr. H.S. Northrop," Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal 27, no. 5 (December 1893): 72.
15 Different sources suggest that John Lyman moved to Syracuse at different dates; however, the earliest directory listing of his living in the U.S. appears in R.L. Polk and Co., Toronto City Directory for 1890. Might Directory, The Toronto City Directory. 1897, p. 1080, lists the company officers after the death of H.S. Northrop; company officers after John Lyman's death are noted in the company's yearly statement to the Province of Ontario, Ontario Archives, Sec. Office Ont. No. 1368, 1906.
16 "Toronto's Wholesale District Swept by Flames," Globe, 20 April 1904. "Fire Notice - Northrop & Lyman Co., Limited," Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal and Pharmacal Gazette 37, no. 10 (May 1904): 471 declares the company's ability to fill orders from their temporary quarters, and the company stated to the Province of Ontario in February 1905 their intention of moving to new quarters on Richmond Street in March, Ontario Archives, Sec. Office Ont. No. 1580, 1905.
17 Campana, "History of Northrop and Lyman," p. 2, provides the date of removal from Richmond to Wellington Street.
18 George Van Nostrand, secretary, Northrop & Lyman, is listed in Might Directories, Toronto City Directory for 1905, but not in the Toronto City Directory for 1914. Etna D. Howe, age 22, clerk, was a member of John Lyman's household in the Canada census for Newcastle Village in 1871, PAC, C9978, and he and John H. McKinnon, both bookkeepers, appear in Might & Taylor's Toronto Directory for 1H7H, p. 313, 348, but their connections with Northrop & Lyman are first noted in R.L. Polk & Co., Toronto City Directory for 1883, pp. 388, 463. Etna Howe's death in 1920 was reported in the Toronto Daily Star, 21 January 1920, and his obituary the following day establishes his relationship as father-in-law to William Eraser. William Fraser is first noted as a clerk with Northrop & Lyman in Might's Toronto City Directory, 1897, p. 721, but had been listed at an earlier date - for example, R.L. Polk & Co., Toronto City Directory, 1883, p. 329 - as a salesman with no reference to affiliation with Northrop & Lyman. In 1914, the Northrop & Lyman Company's officers were as follows: Etna D. Howe president, John H. McKinnon vice-president, H.J. Howe secretary, W.J. Eraser treasurer, M.B. Howe director, in Might's Toronto City Directory, 1914, p. 1226. The McCiillivray association with the company is first noted with John R. McGillivray, traveller for Northrop & Lyman, Might's Toronto City Directory, 1897, p. 961, and also in Might's Toronto City Directory, 1899 p. 642. Tena McCiillivray was a beneficiary of John Lyman's will: Ontario Archives, RCi 22 6-2, Estate file, John Lyman No. 17135,1904, York County, Schedule B, p. 5. Campana, "History of Northrop and Lyman," establishes T.A. McGillivray as working for Northrop & Lyman under a management contract beginning in 1951, and Might Directories, Toronto City Directory for 1925, p. 686, has him as president and manager of McGillivray Brothers Ltd., Importers and Factory Representatives for Yardley & Co. and The Fiberloid Co.; Might Directories, Toronto City Directory for 1950, p. 1028, lists him as general manager of Lehn & Fink. The date of the company name change to Northrop-McGillivray comes from a personal communication to Lois Logan from James H. Wells, National Drug Ltd., February 1982, dating the change to approximately 15 years ago, that is, about 1967 and The National Monthly Merchandiser, a National Drug & Chemical Company sales device, August 1962, p. 22, includes an advertisement for Northrop & Lyman, so the name change post-dates 1962. Marc Lavoie, Archaeo-logical excavations at the Bethune-Thompson House, Williamstoun, Ontario, (Ontario Heritage Foundation, Min. of Culture and Recreation, 1980), pp. 53-54, was in touch with Northrop-McGillivray in 1980.
19 Background on Thomas Holloway and his products is from H.W. Holcombe, Patent Medicine Tax Stamps: A History of the Firms Using United States Private Die Proprietary Medicine Tax Stamps (Lawrence, Mass.: Quarterman Publications, 1979), pp. 236-42, and the British Medical Association, More Secret Remedies: What They Cost and What They Contain (London, 1912), p. 97. Descriptions of Holloway's packaging from Globe, 9 and 11 January 1890.
20 Syracuse Public Library, Obituaries and Biographical Clippings, p. 303; "Death of Mr. H.S. Northrop," p. 72, and "John Lyman," p. 30°
21 William H. Smith, Smith's Canadian Gazetteer, 1846 (Toronto: Coles Canadian Collection, 1970), pp. 17, 241-56; R.W.S. MacKay, ed., The Canada Directory... 1851. (Montreal: 1851), John Loveil, p. 256; Canada Directory, 1857, p. 470.
22 J.L. Mitchell, ed., Mitchell's Canada Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1864-65, p. 491.
23 PAC, Canada census for 1871, microfilm C-9978.
24 Syracuse Public Library, Obituaries and Biog. Clippings; "John Lyman", p. 309.
25 J.E. Middleton and F. Landon, The Province of Ontario: A History,1615-1927, Vol. 1 (Toronto: Dominion Publishing Co., 1927) pp. 654-56.
26 Timperlake Illustrated Toronto, 1877, pp. 299-300; Toronto DailyStar, 20 April 1904; Globe, 20 April 1904; Consolidated Illustrating Co., Toronto, 1893, p. 120.
27 J.H. Young, The Toadstool Millionaires: A Social History of PatentMedicines in America before Federal Regulation, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 100-01, 165-69.
28 For example, J.L. Mitchell's Canada Gazetteer, 1864, p. 484.
29 "Cutting by Druggists," Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal 29 no. 3, (October 1895): 27-28; "Organization of an Association of Proprietary Medicine Manufacturers," 29, no. 5 (December 1895), pp. 62-63; "The Anti-Cutting Movement," 29, no. 7 (February 1896), pp. 91-92.
30 Lyman, Sons & Co., Montreal, Lyman Bros., & Co., Ltd., Toronto, Price Current of Patent Medicines, ca. 1906-09; Northrop & Lyman Co's Almanac and Guide to Health, 1904, T. Eaton Co., Spring and Summer Catalogue, 1905, p. 161.
31 Northrop & Lyman Co's Family Almanac Guide to Health and Recipe Book. 1886.
32 J.H. Young, Toadstool Millionaires, p. 137.
33 Northrop & Lyman Co., Almanac, 1886; Northrop & Lyman's FamilyRecipe Book and Guide to Health (Toronto, ca. 1887); Northrop & Lyman Co. 's Almanac and Guide to Health. 1902 (Toronto), original in the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax; Northrop & Lyman Co. Almanac, 1904.
34 An undated broadside advertising Handy Package Dyes on one side and Gantz Insect Powder on the other is in the Metropolitan Toronto Library, James Papers.
35 Consolidated Illustrating Co., Toronto 1893, p. 120, includes the fact that trained chemists were employed in Northrop & Lyman's Toronto laboratory and the Canada census for 1871 records the Newcastle facility under the title of factory.
36 Canada, Parliament, Sessional Paper No. 125, 1906.
37 For example, section 8 of the PPM Act, 1908, specified that patent and proprietary medicines sold in Canada had to include the manufacturer's name and address.
38 Statutes of Canada, PPM Act, 1908, section 9. Discussions in the Senate of the clause on samples are in Senate, Debates, 1907-08, Vol. 2, 15 July 1908, pp. 1564.
39 PAC, Census for 1861, C 1017.
40 Campana, History of Northrop and Lyman, p. 1.
41 John Loveil, Canada Directory for 1857, p. 470; J.L. Mitchell's CanadaGazetteer, 1864, p. 484.
42 PAC, Census for 1871, notes 12 people employed at the factory that year - 5 men, 6 women and a boy.
43 The names of products and their dates of introduction are contained in Northrop & Lyman Almanac, 1886, 1904. Timperlake, Illustrated Toronto, 1877, p. 300 records the company's connection with the Ayer products, the names of which have been extracted from Holcombe, Patent Medicine Tax Stamps, pp. 8-18 and from Wilson & Wilson, 19th Century Medicine in Glass (Amador, Calif.: 19th Century Hobby and Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 18-19. The reference to the company's manufacturing of perfumes, ointments, etc., and dozens of patent medicines is from Consolidated Illustrating Co., Toronto. 1893, p. 120, as well as the examples in figures 3 and 13.
44 Peter MacEwan, Pharmaceutical Formulas, A Book of Useful Recipes for the Drug Trade, 5th ed. (London: The Chemist & Druggist, 1902), first published April 1898.
45 Whitall, Tatum & Co., 1897 Annual Price List (Philadelphia, New York, Boston, 1896).
46 Consolidated Illustrating Co., Toronto, 1893, includes the fact ointments, bay rum, and other standard preparations were put out by Northrop & Lyman. Information on the company's twentieth-century products comes from National Drug & Chemical Co., Monthly Merchandiser, 1962, p. 22, and James H. Watts, pers. com. to Lois Logan.
47 Statutes of Canada, PPM Act, section 3.
48 Ollie Urquhart, Bottlers and Bottles, Canadian (Toronto: S. & O. Urquhart, 1976) p. 40, no. 192, illustrates a Mother Graves' Worm Exterminator bottle.
49 See O.R. Jones, "Essence of Peppermint: A History of the Medicine and its Bottle," Historical Archaeology 15, no. 2 (1981): 2-4.
50 Northrop & Lyman Co., Almanac, ca. 1887, pp. 23-24.
51 Catherine Sullivan, "Dr. Thomas' Eclectic Oil" (manuscript on file, Parks Canada, Ottawa, 1983).
52 Dominion Glass Company, "Inventory of Mould Equipment," an inventory of glassware moulds held at the Hamilton factory in 1926, handwritten in a ledger (PAC).
53 Timperlake Illustrated Toronto, 1877 and Consolidated Illustrating Co., Toronto, 1893, imply both volume and variety in Northrop & Lyman products, and Campana, "History of Northrop & Lyman," refers to 750 products carried by the company at that time.
54 Bill Hogan and Pauline Hogan, Canadian Country Store Collectables (St. Catharines, Ont.: B. & P. Hogan, 1979), pp. 112-13, shows tins for Dr. J.D. Kellogg's Asthama Remedy and Gantz Insect Powder, both Northrop & Lyman products.
55 George L. Miller and Elizabeth A. Jorgenson, "Some notes on bottle mould numbers from Dominion Glass Company and its predecessors" (manuscript on file, Parks Canada, Ottawa, 1982).
56 William Walbridge, American Bottles Old ô New: A Story of the Industry in the United States (Toledo, Ohio: Owens' Bottle Company, 1920), p. 80.
57 Catherine Sullivan, "Dr. Thomas' Eclectric Oil." Dominion Glass Company, Inventory of Moulds at the Hamilton Branch, 1926, also notes an 8-ounce Thomas' Eclectric Oil bottle which has not thus far been examined (see table I).
58 A date of introduction for Canadian Hair Dye is suggested by Northrop & Lyman Co., Almanac, ca. 1887, p. 15, where reference is made to its being introduced over 20 years previously and by Northrop & Lyman's Almanac, 1904, back cover, by which time 38 years have passed since Canadian Hair Dye was first put before the public. The shape is called a short Blake or oblonge by Henry Allen Pierce. Price List of Glassware (New York: Henry Allen, 1886), p. 243; by Whitall Tatum & Co., Catalogue, 1897, pp. 17, 74; and by Sydenham Glass Co., Illustrated Bottle Catalogue and Price List, (Wallaceburg, Ont., 1908),pp. 9,13. An illustration of the label on Canadian Hair Dye bottles can be seen in T. Eaton Co., Fall and Winter Catalogue, 1929-30, p. 333.
59 Conflicting dates of introduction for Trask's Magnetic Ointment are from Wilson and Wilson, 19th Century Medicine, p. 142 and Holcombe, Patent Medicine Tax Stamps, pp. 424-27. Northrop & Lyman's advertisement for the product is found in their almanac, 1886, p. 8, and a larger size bottle is illustrated by Wilson and Wilson, p. 92.
60 The label on the Kellogg's Toothache Cure bottle includes this information: "No. 40 The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act." The registration number is the same as was assigned to the Parmelee's Cough Balsam in figure 11. The styling of the Northrop & Lyman name with Limited in smaller letters, combined with the PPM Act number, suggests that it was made between 1909 and 1914.
61 This bottle has been studied as part of an excavated assemblage by Olive R. Jones, "Catalogue of the Glass Bottles and Other Miscellaneous Glassware Excavated at Coteau du Lac, Quebec" (1975). Emulsion panels with mould number 290 made at the Dominion factories are recorded in Miller & Jorgensen, "Notes on bottle mould numbers," Appendix A, p. 7, and Appendix B, p. 12. Urquhart, Bottles and Bottlers, Canadian, p. 19, No. 50 and p. 38, No. 164, illustrates two others of these bottles.
62 The shape is named in Whitall, Tatum & Co., Catalogue, 1896, p. 75, and Sydenham Glass Co., Catalogue, 1908, p. 18, among others.
63 Other illustrations of these bottles have been found in Urquhart, Bottles and Bottlers, Canadian, p. 38, No. 163, and p. 41, No. 198. Dating of the latter example is based on Miller and Jorgensen, "Notes on bottle mould numbers," table 1.