472 



NATURE 



{Sept. 



o> 



1888 



employed in some of them, but I find it difficult to think of many 

 examples. The sort of person who is put in charge of these 

 places is usually a schoolmaster, who is allowed, sometimes even 

 after his appointment, to get a short course of qualitative 

 analysis in order to enable him to obtain a certificate which 

 will entitle him to earn grants from the Science and Art 

 Department. 



And manufacturers are much to blame. Instead of employing 

 trained chemists, the greater number of those who want chemical 

 assistance are satisfied to engage the services of boys who have 

 been to an evening class for a winter or two. 



The difficulty of finding a satisfactory career in connection with 

 the subject also accounts for the fact, which I fear must be 

 admitted, that chemistry does not attract its due share of the 

 intellect of the nation. Clever young men can usually do better 

 at the law, in medicine, or in commerce, than in teaching 

 chemistry or in manufactures in which chemical skill is appli- 

 cable. So badly educated are many of the young men who 

 commence the study with professional objects in view, that it is 

 quite impossible to teach them anything beyond routine analysis, 

 if so much. 



I heard lately from a friend of mine a story of a young groom 

 in his employ who cannot read or write ; and who declines to be 

 taught to read on the ground that, considering himself preity 

 smart, he is afraid that "learning might dull him. 1 ' This idea 

 seems to be rather prevalent among certain classes of people, 

 but I can assure those who wish to be chemists that some 

 familiarity with the rule of three, and such a command of English 

 as will enable them to understand words of more than one 

 syllable, will be no obstacle to the acquisition of chemical 

 knowledge. 



Three years has hitherto been regarded as the normal period 

 of study. The question arises, can a young man, previously 

 well educated, expect to become an accomplished chemist, 

 competent to apply his knowledge usefully, by giving the whole 

 of his time to study during three years ? 1 believe not. 



By reason of the enormous development of science the position 

 of the student of chemistry is nowadays very different from what it 

 was thirty years ago. Since that time we have not only got a 

 few new elements, a matter. of small importance in itself, but 

 new views of the nature of the elements and of their mutual 

 relations. This could hardly have come about but for the re- 

 cognition of the law of Avogadro as a fundamental principle, 

 upon which we rely as the ultimate criterion by which the true 

 distinction between so-called equivalent weights and molecular 

 ratios has been established. By the gradual evolution of ideas 

 having reference successively to electro-chemical relations of 

 elements and compounds, the theory of types, and atomicity or 

 valency, we have arrived at notions of chemical constitution 

 based upon the hypothesis of the orderly linking together of 

 atoms. Thirty years ago isomerism had scarcely attracted 

 notice, and carbon compounds were only just beginning to be 

 arranged in homologous series. The general use at the present 

 day of the language of the molecular kinetic theory shows how 

 deeply this theory influences our ideas of the internal constitu- 

 tion of matter. Within the period referred to, dissociation has 

 been studied and a vast body of thermo-chemical data have been 

 accumulated. And although the larger portion of the results of 

 this work still await interpretation, dynamical ideas of chemical 

 action are now generally accepted. We have also new methods 

 of investigation, including spectroscopic analysis with all its vast 

 train of results. 



When I began chemistry many of these subjects and others 

 had not been heard of. Of course we had our difficulties, and I 

 well remember the puzzles met with in the endeavour to refer 

 compounds to their appropriate types, also the consternation 

 caused in the student's mind and the confusion in his note-book 

 by the successive changes in the atomic weights of carbon, 

 oxygen, sulphur, and the metals. But on the whole there was 

 much less to learn. 



It has always been thought essential that a student of chemistry 

 should have some knowledge of physics. It is now more than 

 ever necessary that this knowledge should be extensive, sound, 

 and based upon a good foundation of mathematics. Thirty years 

 ago a hundred pages of Fownes contained all that was thought 

 necessary, but no one nowadays could be satisfied with that. It 

 is now asserted that a young chemist who expects to find a career 

 in industrial chemistry should also have learnt drawing, and more 

 important still that he should have a good general knowledge of 

 mechanics, steam, and building construction. I suppose everyone 



will agree in adding French and especially German. You see how 

 the requirements expand. 



The inference from all this is that it now takes longer to make 

 a chemist than formerly. This is a point of considerable practical 

 importance. 



My estimate that a well-educated and intelligent young man 

 will now require five years for the study of chemistry and 

 accessory subjects before he is likely to be of much use will not 

 appear extravagant. 



Here one may remark that in order to become a chemist it is 

 before all things necessary to study chemistry. If the greater 

 part of a student's time is to be taken up with other things, it is 

 not very clear how this is to be done. 



A reform all round is wanted. The mathematics, modern 

 languages, and drawing properly belong to the antecedent 

 school period, and I believe the Institute of Chemistry would 

 greatly promote the interests of the profession if it would impose 

 upon candidates for the Associateship not only a three years' 

 course of training with an examination in practical chemistry at 

 the end, but a severe examination in mathematics, in the 

 English, French, and German languages, and perhaps drawing, 

 before matriculation or registration. 



A consideration of the present position of the student of 

 chemistry leads naturally to a review of the methods of teaching 

 the subject. Speaking broadly, I suppose nearly all professional 

 chemists who have had the advantage of systematic training have, 

 up to the present time, passed through very much the same kind 

 of course. This consists, as everybody knows, very largely of 

 analytical work, qualitative and quantitative, preceded or 

 followed by the preparation of a number of definite chemical 

 compounds, besides practice in certain very necessary physical 

 determinations, e.g. relative density of solids, liquids, and gases, 

 melting-points, boiling-points, and so forth. There seems now 

 to be a disposition in some quarters to depart from this time- 

 honoured curriculum in favour of a course in which the student 

 is early engaged in some semblance of investigation, and in 

 which he is encouraged to attack difficult problems, which from 

 their fundamental importance offer considerable temptation. I 

 venture to express a hope that this will not be carried too far. 

 Already we are in danger of losing the art of accurate analysis. 

 One constantly meets with young chemists who are ready enough 

 to discuss the constitution of benzene, but who cannot make a 

 reliable combustion. And, according to my own experience, 

 attempts at research among inexperienced chemists become 

 abortive more frequently in consequence of deficient analytical 

 skill than from any other cause. 



One modification I should gladly see generally adopted. I 

 think an unnecessary amount of time is often spent upon 

 qualitative mineral analysis, and an acquaintance with the 

 properties of common and important carbon compounds ought 

 to be acquired at an early stage. Quantitative work might with 

 advantage be taken up sooner than usual. By that, however, I 

 mean serious work, in which good methods are used and every 

 effort made to secure accuracy. I do not believe in the use of 

 rough methods because they are easy ; the use of such leads the 

 student to be satisfied with approximations, which, after all, he 

 will learn soon enough are all that is possible to man. I am very 

 glad to know that I have the support of one of my predecessors 

 in this chair (Sir Henry Roscoe), whose opinion will carry far 

 greater weight than mine, in deprecating premature efforts to 

 engage students in research. 1 



But though it does not appear to me to be wise to encovra^e 

 beginners, without sufficient experience or manipulative skill, t.> 

 attempt original work, one of the best possible exercises pre- 

 paratory to original work is to select suitable memoirs, and no - , 

 only to read them but to work conscientiously through the whole 

 of the preparations and analyses described, following the i 

 structions given. Many of Dr. Hofmann's papers afford excellent 

 examples. So also do the writings of Dr. Perkin and Dr. 

 Frankland, besides those of many other chemists which could 

 easily be selected by the teacher. 



An intelligent student, possessing the requisite preliminary 

 knowledge, would obtain much instruction by repeating the 

 work contained in such papers as the following, for example :- 

 Emerson Reynolds on the missing sulphur urea (J. Chem. Soc 

 1869, i.) ; Fittig and Tollens on the synthesis of hydrocarbons 

 of the benzol series {Liebig's Annalen, 1864, exxxi. 303) ; 1- 

 Claisen and Pupils on the introduction of acid radicles into 



1 See Address to Section B, Montreal meeting. 





