DUTIES OF MASTERS AND APPRENTICES. 
207 
mark, that the case was an important one, and he had come a considerable dis¬ 
tance, “because he was told I was a Pharmaceutical Chemist.” Now, while I 
am not the only one in the neighbourhood, and certainly claim no superiority 
over my brethren, I submit that the case was significant, and I believe when 
next year’s Jury Papers go forth, they will exercise an influence in the same 
direction. Again : some of our friends will have it that Associates make bad 
Assistants; in justice to them, let me record a twenty years’ experience as op¬ 
posed to this. I have seen, on the contrary, that they command a higher rate 
of salary, and, as a rule, I have not found the educational mark a bar to 
general usefulness behind the counter. On another occasion you will perhaps 
permit me to say a word or two on the question of Masters and Apprentices. 
Meantime, I am, Sir, faithfully yours, 
Wm. Fred. Smith. 
12, Keen's Row , Walworth , Nov. 10, 1863. 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND APPRENTICES. 
TO THE EDITOIt OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Dear Sir,—No doubt “Paterfamilias” has considerable cause of complaint 
against many druggists who take apprentices; but there is another side to the 
question. In the first place, parents generally seem to have a notion that the 
same acquirements that will make a good bacon-factor will make a good chemist, 
and they are offended if you hint that any knowledge which their son does not 
possess is necessary before you can accept him as an apprentice ; assuming that 
he has been educated to that point where he is qualified to do anything in life 
that may “ turn up.” It is the commonest thing to hear men say, “ I meant to 
put him to a grocer, but when I heard you wanted an apprentice, he seemed to 
like it, and so I thought if you would take him it would do as well.” 
You suggest, as one very simple thing, that a knowledge of Latin is necessary; 
and as one little test, you ask the father if he can read a prescription that happens 
to be upon the counter. At this he either goes off angrily, or suggests that his 
son will u get used to it .” 
I am sorry to say too many apprentices are taken under the idea that they 
will “ get used to it .” 
If a parent apprentices a son with a knowledge that a particular acquire¬ 
ment is necessary to his success, and is fully aware that the son does not possess 
that acquirement, then the fault is as much the father’s as the druggist’s, and 
more so if the druggist has warned him of it. But I fully believe that the re¬ 
marks of “Paterfamilias” do not apply to Pharmaceutical chemists at all (as a 
body). 
Next we come to the apprentice himself. He may possess the rudimentary 
knowledge considered essential by the Pharmaceutical Society, but how very few 
follow it up by any further study at all! In numbers of cases coming under my 
own notice, apprentices have had every opportunity, and the masters (for their 
own sakes) have been anxious to assist them in every way, offered to furnish them 
with valuable books, chemicals (in moderation), and to accompany them at spe¬ 
cial times upon botanical excursions; but in no one instance have I known the 
master succeed in inducing the apprentice to apply even the smallest part of his 
time to the pursuits necessary to give him a good and sound knowledge of his 
future occupation : anything rather than study. The master finally leaves the 
apprentice to work his way by himself, or only gives him that knowledge which 
he can acquire during business hours under his own superintendence. 
“ Paterfamilias ” may treat lightly the “ art ” of “ making ointments,” etc., but 
if he saw some of the “ filthy messes ” sent out even by some wholesale houses, 
he would not think a few months lost by an apprentice in acquiring the art of 
good pharmaceutical manipulation. 
