132 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[August 17, 1872. 
geneous mass of facts, referable mainly to biological i 
(chiefly botanical) and chemical science, and whether 
its details might not be advantageously taught in their 
natural places, instead of sifting them out for separate 
treatment, is quite open to debate. But whatever 
the manner of treatment, the subjects involved must 
be taught—if not to students in medicine and sur¬ 
gery, then the more certainly to students in pharmacy; 
and thus a double responsibility rests upon us in respect 
to these important sections of medical knowledge. 
I hold that this utterance of Professor Huxley’s con¬ 
tains by inference a fresh and most important recog- . 
nition of the fact that the scientific attainments of the 
pharmaceutist must be complementary to those of the 
medical practitioner, separated only by that sort of line 
which marks all division of human labour; that, pro¬ 
spectively, the two avocations must be more and more 
dependent upon each other, the physician looking to the 
pharmaceutist not merely as the compounder of his pre¬ 
scriptions, but as to one on whom he can rely for 
assistance in scientific subjects closely allied to those 
which are his own more immediate concern. 
You will ask whereto these reflections lead. In 
endeavouring to answer the question, I desire before all 
things to bear in mind that pharmacy from our point of 
view does not represent a fanciful experimental form of 
science, meet for the amateur, but primarily, a means of 
earning a subsistence; and I hope I shall be preserved 
from making a single remark inconsistent with this 
fundamental consideration. I trust, also, that I give 
due weight to the fact that pharmacy only began to 
assume a definite position in this country with the 
passing of the Pharmacy Act four years ago. Before 
that time whatever was done in Great Britain to advance 
pharmaceutical science—and much was done—was acci¬ 
dental rather than the result of system. It is essential 
that we keep the past very clearly in view in our endea¬ 
vour to trace the requirements of the present. 
Questions affecting the training of the rising genera¬ 
tion of pharmaceutists, pertain to the functions of the 
Pharmaceutical Society rather than directly to the Con¬ 
ference, as do those also which concern the opportunities 
which exist for prosecuting pharmaceutical research. 
But this need not preclude their free discussion here, 
indeed, they force themselves upon our notice at a time 
like the present, when educational problems are upper¬ 
most in the public mind. The papers promised to the 
Conference on the former of these subjects will be re¬ 
ceived with interest, and their discussion may clear the 
way of some of the difficulties which, though they un¬ 
doubtedly exist, are unnecessarily magnified by those 
who would “ rest and be thankful” rather than commit 
themselves to any new exertion. 
Ihat the Board of Examiners of the Pharmaceutical 
Society is fully alive to the importance of a higher 
standard of preliminary education, we see frequent 
evidence, but its action has been very properly influenced 
by consideration for the position of youths who had 
chosen their vocation before it could be said with any' 
certainty that their future must depend on their ability to 
pass examinations. But the time when leniency on this 
ground can be extended without discredit to the Society 
is rapidly drawing to a close, and an increase in the 
scope and stringency of the demands on youths entering 
the profession ought at once to receive serious attention! i 
Neither could there be any complaint of hardship in 
the adoption of a higher standard if due notice were 
given of the intention of the Board to raise their mini¬ 
mum requirement. It cannot be too prominently kept in 
view that the Preliminary examination is not of itself 
pharmaceutical; that it is but the means of assurance 
that a youth has sufficient general knowledge to give 
him the best chance of pursuing the vocation he has 
chosen, with success to himself and with credit to the 
body at large. Such examination ought, therefore, to 
follow immediately on leaving school, so that the mind 
may be at liberty from the commencement of the term 
of pupilage for the acquirement of technical and scien¬ 
tific knowledge. It is no part of the duty of a principal 
to do the work of a schoolmaster. A youth who cannot 
pass a good examination in the branches of learning 
comprised in what is usually understood as a liberal 
education, is not fit to commence his apprenticeship as a 
pharmaceutist; and a principal who at the present time 
takes an apprentice without reference to his preliminary 
training, does a direct injury to the body at large, 
and performs no kindness to the youth himself. Sup¬ 
posing a boy has to remain a year longer at school, can 
that be regarded as any real hardship, or is he likely, in 
after life, ever to regret the slight initiatory delay ? 
Can he possibly, in the long run, be a loser by it ? I 
am far from asserting that our middle-class schools are 
what they ought to be, however much they may have 
been improved of recent years; but taking them as they 
are, it cannot be urged that there is any serious difficulty 
in obtaining a fair English education, together with in¬ 
struction in the rudiments of Latin, French, and Ger¬ 
man. If, as Mr. Benger hinted in his suggestive paper, 
read before the Conference at Liverpool, our ranks are 
likely to be recruited from a wealthier stratum of society 
than hitherto, there is still less excuse for laxity and 
indulgence. This subject of preliminary education now 
needs plain speaking; it lies at the root of the whole 
question of the advancement of pharmacy. Without a 
wider and deeper foundation than is at present secured 
no worthy superstructure can be raised. 
It appears to me that the liberty to proceed to the 
“Minor” examination immediately on passing the 
“Preliminary” is a grave mistake. We have done 
away with the necessity of apprenticeship, and no longer 
require the guarantee of practical experience and teach¬ 
ing that the old system of indentures afforded; perhaps 
this is as it should be, but we ought at least to be clear 
that sufficient time has elapsed after the youth has been 
able to devote his energies to pharmacy pure and simple, 
whether bound as an apprentice or not, to enable him to 
acquire, leisurely and systematically, the knowledge 
necessary for his technical examinations, and I do not 
think that an interval of three or four years is too much 
to insist upon, in order to secure this end. 
The Minor Examination demands a moment’s notice 
because, under the present Act, it is the Registration 
test. The efforts which have been made to render it 
thoroughly practical would receive fresh support by 
the adoption of the course I have ventured to suggest. 
The bane of all examinations is the temptation to 
“ cram”—you will excuse the word, I know of no better 
—but I conceive that it is very much in the power 
of the examiners to render mere “cramming” almost 
or entirely ineffective. No candidate pretends to cram 
for the dispensing examination, and I speak with some 
experience when I say that it would be easy to make 
the botanical section as completely practical as the 
dispensing. I cannot doubt that the examination in 
chemistry might in the same way be supplemented by 
tests to which crammed knowledge would furnish no 
reaction. 
The diploma of the Major Examination ought to be 
regarded very much in the same light as the Fellowship 
of the College of Physicians or the College of Surgeons 
is in their respective bodies, and the value of the degree 
it confers ought to be as jealously guarded. There can 
be no reason why the Sqpiety should be satisfied with a 
lower standard that that which has long been in vogue 
for the “ Pharmacien de la Premiere Classo” in France. 
It has been suggested by one whose opinion carries 
weight with it, that the occasional presence during the 
examinations of a non-pharmaceutical assessor—say, a 
scientific chemist of eminence not belonging to our own 
body—would be in many ways an advantage. The mere 
“looker-on sees most of the game,” and the suggestions 
of an independent observer could not fail to be of service 
