August 31, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
175 
'would simply drive them into other pursuits requiring 
either less time or money to prepare them for it, or 
which would prove more remunerative for the outlay. 
I am not going to enter into any arguments. in support 
of this idea, but I am thoroughly convinced it is correct, 
unless you provide a free or a cheap education at the 
■expense of the Society’s funds ; and this I would oppose 
more than anything else, as I have ever found that a 
pauper education is the worst possible. 
“ I hope you will excuse these few hasty thoughts and 
■criticisms, strung together quickly and unsystematically, 
but I could scarcely refuse your kind invitation on so 
important a subject and on so important an occasion. 
“ I am, dear sir, yours truly, 
- “Wm. Gilmour.” 
Letter from Mr. David Kemp, of Portobello. 
“ Portobello, 
“ 9th August, 1872. 
“ Dear Sir,—Your paper on ‘ Pharmaceutical Educa¬ 
tion’ has given me great satisfaction, on account of the 
thorough and exhaustive manner in which the subject is 
treated, and the conviction that it furnishes the true 
solution of a most important and difficult question. 
“ Having believed all along that the Pharmaceutical 
.'Society was really desirous and honest in its endeavours 
rto promote pharmaceutical education, not only in Lon¬ 
don but also in the provinces, I am greatly pleased with 
■the explanation you have given of its position, and your 
<very complete vindication of its conduct in regard to it 
from its commencement to the present time. With re¬ 
ference to the Minor examination, I am inclined to 
think that after the present exceptional and transitional 
period has passed, it might be abolished with advantage, 
af the rights of those who were apprentices prior to 1868, 
•and those who have entered the business since to be ex¬ 
amined under the present regulations, be reserved. If 
■.this were done, there would be only the Preliminary and 
Major examinations left, the latter of which, with edu¬ 
cation made compulsory by proof of attendance at lec¬ 
tures on the various subjects being required from each 
candidate for examination, would go far to destroy the 
system of cramming of which you so justly complain. 
“ I fully agree with you in thinking that until educa¬ 
tion is made compulsory, the demand for a thorough 
pharmaceutical education will not be sufficiently urgent 
or extensive to warrant the Society in incurring much 
•expense in providing it out of London. In the mean¬ 
time, however, the desire, such as it is, for it, should be 
fostered and encouraged in every legitimate way, by all 
who are interested in the advancement of Pharmacy and 
as far as practicable and just, by substantial aid from the 
Society, but I do not think it would be wise to provide it 
or right to ask it much below its fair value. 
“ I feel satisfied that a school such as you propose in 
•each of three or four of the great centres of population 
would be sufficient to meet the demand for it when it 
arises, and that it ought not to be provided on any ex¬ 
tensive or expensive scale till then. 
“ My answers then to the questions you proposed, 
aaamely: — 
‘ 1 . Is it desirable to make pharmaceutical education 
•compulsory ? If so, 
‘ 2. By what method should it be made compulsory ? 
and 
‘ 3. What means should be adopted for providing stu¬ 
dents with the means of obtaining pharmaceutical educa- 
.tion ?’ 
“ Are:— 
“ To the first, Yes. 
“ To the second, By requiring proof of systematic study. 
“ To the third, by the present school in London, and by 
• organizing schools elsewhere when really required and 
-likely to be entirely or nearly self-sustaining. 
“ I am, dear Sir, yours truly, 
“David Kemp.” 
Letter from Mr. Peter Squire, of London. 
“ 277, Oxford Street, London, IV. 
“ \9th August, 1872. 
“Dear Dr. Attfield,—Your very elaborate paper seems 
to have exhausted the subject, and left little room for 
criticism; but if cram does exist to the extent you say it 
does, and if, as I suppose, it may be possible that Exa¬ 
miners are insensibly led to adopt set questions, then it 
does appear that some means should be devised to ensure 
a good curriculum of education. 
“ Thirty years or more ago, when my opinion. had 
weight in the Society, I ruled at the Board of Examiners 
that if the candidate possessed the amount of knowledge 
necessary to carry on his business with safety to the 
public, we ought not to demand from him even his in¬ 
dentures of apprenticeship. But vast changes have 
taken place since then; my ideas are too antiquated for 
the present generation, nevertheless, my opinion still is, 
and always will be, what I stated in the House of Lords, 
that educated intelligence is by far a better safeguard 
than the best devised Act of Parliament against poison¬ 
ing. 
“Yours truly, 
“P. Squire.” 
Mr. G. W. Sandford, of London, fearing that he 
might not be able to attend the Conference had forwarded 
the following remarks to Professor Attfield, but being 
present was requested to read them:— 
Professor Attfield has indeed rightly stated in intro¬ 
ducing the important subject of Pharmaceutical Educa¬ 
tion to this meeting that no apology was necessary. I am 
sure every member of the Conference will thank him 
for so ably describing the condition of pharmaceutical 
education past and present , and receive with all respect 
and attention the opinion of one so well qualified to form 
an opinion on the best means of promoting it in the 
future. The advancement of pharmacy, seems to me to 
be the special province of this Association, and though 
professedly we meet to exchange notes of the doings of 
the past year for our mutual edification and improve¬ 
ment, I think the education of the future pharmacists of 
Great Britain must be a matter of the deepest interest to 
us all. In the few words defining pharmaceutical edu¬ 
cation, the chief requirements of a pharmacist are forcibly 
expressed ; and if we succeed in instilling into the minds 
of the rising generation these ideas, England, although 
last in starting, may not be the least among nations 
in pharmaceutical honour. 
Professor Attfield proposes two questions, and. they are 
perhaps the two leading questions on the subject now 
occupying the minds of most men present. 
1st. How to supply the demand for knowledge which 
compulsory examination has called forth. 
2nd. The future relation of the Pharmaceutical 
Society to pharmaceutical education. 
For certain reasons it seems to me that these two 
questions should change places, and I would therefore at 
once offer a few remarks on the relationship of the so¬ 
ciety to education. It is rightly asserted that the Society 
was originally founded for the purpose of advancing 
chemistry and pharmacy, and promoting an uniform 
system of education of those who should practise the 
same, but I must dissent from the opinion I have so 
frequently heard and seen expressed of late mat me 
founders intended it to be ultimately an educating esta- 
lishment. , , , ,. v 
We know that their object was to enforce education by 
mdering examination compulsory; but at the tune the 
arrent of ‘ Free-trade’ was running so strongly intnis 
Duntry that questions not purely of trade were drawn 
ito the stream, and the efforts even of Jacob Bell and 
is fellow-labourers were unequal to the task of extri- 
ating this particular one. But Jacob Bed a 
ot easily daunted, and, although defeated for the time, 
