•September 7, 1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
189 
IJmctimtjjs jof Sotntiftt 
BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL CONFERENCE. 
Tuesday , August \Zth, 1872. 
{Continued from page 178.) 
Election of an Honorary Member. 
p The President : Before we begin the discussion of the 
Education question I wish to repair an omission which was 
made this morning. Owing to the want of precise infor¬ 
mation the Executive Committee were not aware, until 
Professor Markoe stated it, that we had present hope 
another American pharmacist of eminence—Professor 
Wayne, of Cincinnati. I am about to ask you to elect 
Professor Wayne an honorary member of this Conference, 
and to express some regret that we were not so well in¬ 
formed beforehand of his movements as to be able to 
bring his name forward at the first sitting of the Con¬ 
ference. I do not think I need say more. Professor 
Wayne is not merely the professor of pharmacy in the 
Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, but he is widely 
known as a chemist and mineralogist. These facts of 
themselves, even were it not for his presence here at 
our meeting, would be sufficient to absolve us from 
going through our usual custom of recommendations 
of this sort coming up from the Executive Committee ; 
I ask you, therefore, to elect Professor Wayne, of 
Cincinnati, an honorary member of this association. 
Mr. Schacht said that he had been requested, as a 
matter of form, to second the nomination of Professor 
"Wayne, though the acclamation with which that gentle¬ 
man’s name had been received rendered unnecessary any 
further comment on the subject. 
The motion was then carried by acclamation. 
Professor Wayne said: I cannot but thank you for 
the honour you have just conferred upon me in electing 
me a member of the association. It was a matter I was 
not prepared for at all. Further, I would say, it gives 
me great pleasure to meet the pharmacists of Great 
Britain in convention. 
Discussion on Pharmaceutical Education. 
The President then invited a discussion on the subject 
.raised in Professor Attfield’s paper, requesting the gentle¬ 
men who spoke to condense then remarks so far as con¬ 
sistent with free expression of opinion. There were 
present two or three gentlemen well versed in questions 
affecting education and scientific examinations who were 
not accustomed to attend these meetings. The Con¬ 
ference would gain much by hearing the views of Pro¬ 
fessor Michael Foster, of Cambridge, for instance, as 
well as some others he saw present, on the matters in 
debate. 
Mr. Schacht: Mr. President and gentleman, my 
views upon this question are, I hope, pretty well known ; 
I have already taken means, and others have taken 
means, to make you acquainted with them, and I 
came here with the resolution to take no part in 
your proceedings, de novo , but to listen to the views 
©f others, and confine any remarks I might have to 
make to what might be suggested b}'' them. I can¬ 
didly confess that although I have made an effort to 
handle well the threads of the matter which has been 
introduced, and to keep them distinct, I feel myself 
somewhat bewildered by the many different views 
which have been put forth. But there are two or three 
words which help me considerably to arrange the matter 
in my mind, and those words you will all remember to 
have heard frequently uttered. They are, examination, 
education, cram. Perhaps these three words will serve 
to direct the discussion. But before even I venture 
to follow the suggestions which those words afford, 
.it seems to me that there is one consideration above all 
others which we should take into account. There has 
been hinted the idea that the Pharmaceutical Society 
has nothing to do with education. Now if that be an 
idea which prevails generally among the members of the 
Pharmaceutical Society, it seems to me that there is an 
end of the necessity of any discussion as to methods and 
processes. It lies at the root of the whole question, 
whether it is worth while to entertain any scheme what¬ 
ever, or whether it would be better to leave the whole 
subject to the commonplace process of supply and de¬ 
mand. A portion of Professor Attfield’s paper goes very 
largely, as it appears to me, in this direction : rather to 
compel education, but not to supply it. Now, if this 
doctrine has a general echo in the minds of those who 
constitute the Society, I say once more, let us discuss 
the matter no more. It must be left then to individual 
effort, and as far, at least, as the Pharmaceutical Society 
is concerned, collective effort is useless. That, how¬ 
ever, is not my opinion. I oppose it absolutely and in 
toto, and heartily echo that other portion of Professor 
Attfield’s paper which hardly seems to be in accordance 
with the one to which I have alluded, and which has 
traced the action of the Pharmaceutical Society from its 
commencement to the present time, and proved that 
that action has been identical with the theory that it is 
a part of the duty of the Pharmaceutical Society to pro¬ 
mote pharmaceutical education. Holding, then, that 
view, I enter upon the consideration of the three ques¬ 
tions suggested by the three words I have named. In 
the first place with regard to the examinations of the 
Pharmaceutical Society, I should like simply to make 
this remark—that possibly they may not be perfect. 
We will even admit that they are largely capable of im¬ 
provement, though whether by each of the two pro¬ 
cesses that have been indicated, or by any other, does 
not materially signify. It is possible that by ejecting 
our twelve present examiners, and substituting twelve 
individuals of that impossible character imagined, but 
never seen, by Mr. Tait, we might improve the quality 
of our examination. If we had twelve perfect examiners, 
it is possible that we might have a perfect examination. 
But the Professor in candour admits that this is almost 
an impossibility, and, therefore, does not encourage 
us to hope that much change will take place by modify¬ 
ing the Board of Examiners at present existing. But he 
leads us rather to hope that improvement would be 
effected if we adopted the other alternative, of supple¬ 
menting the present condition of examining by making 
it necessary that each candidate should bring with him 
a certificate of attendance at certain courses of lec¬ 
tures. I am not quite sure whether he includes the 
fact of his having been apprenticed for a certain num¬ 
ber of years in the trade. ^ 
Professor Attfield : Yes. 
Mr. Schacht: Now, I ask you just to observe this 
fact—that in proportion as you make it necessary by 
Act of Parliament, or by the procedure of the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society, that that examination should be diffi- 
j cult to pass, and that the candidate should have attended 
certain lectures, in that proportion do you act the part 
of an arbitrary tyrant;—you put the man in the difficulty 
and dilemma in which you would place a beggar, sup¬ 
posing that you were to pass a law that none but those 
who wore velvet gowns should be considered citizens, 
and be entitled to the privileges of citizens; unless at the 
same time you give the beggar, in the one case, or the 
pharmaceutical student in the other, the opportunity ot 
fulfilling these conditions which you say shall be neces¬ 
sary before you bestow the privilege which he seeks. It 
seems to me that in that part of his argument, the writer 
is simply strengthening the position of those who 
are claiming for pharmaceutical students, wherever 
they may be, some sort of opportunity for systematic 
instruction. It is very little use to say that they .must 
have a certificate, if they have had no opportunity ot 
! attending lectures as to which certificates are require . 
