266 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[October 5, 1872. 
Mr. Hampson said it appeared to him that if the 
scholarships were given for elementary education alone, 
it would really defeat the intention of the founders of 
the Fund, who evidently designed to promote the advance 
of pharmacy distinctly. 
Mr. Hills said he should not like to give a silent vote 
upon this question but would only say that he adhered 
to the view of the Committee of which he had been a 
member, that the Senior Scholarships should be abolished, 
and two Junior Scholarships established instead. At 
the same time, he thought the examination might be so 
modified as to contain something at least relating to 
pharmacy. 
Mr. Betty said he was glad to hear at least one gentle¬ 
man come forward and support in the Council the views 
which he had advocated in Committee, namely, that in 
the present state of things the Senior Bell Scholarship 
was not really useful to the Society or to the trade at 
large. If it were really contended for and awarded, it 
would no doubt be of great use, but when it appeared the 
conditions were such that it fell into abeyance, and they 
had to take refuge in the plan now suggested, common 
sense seemed to point out that they should do formally 
what they had to do in reality. He was still of opinion 
that it was practically of more utility to the Society to 
diffuse education rather than to confine it, in however 
brilliant a star, to one or two spots. If every year there 
were introduced into the business two Junior Bell 
Scholars who had received such an education as would 
do themselves credit, it must certainly be more advan¬ 
tageous than having one Senior BgII Scholar, which was 
about the average. 
Mr. Frazer said he should prefer to retain the Senior 
Scholarship; firstly, because it would be keeping faith 
with the subscribers—especially as when candidates did 
not appear, two Junior Scholarships were awarded ; and 
secondly, because as education was advancing, it was to 
be hoped that in the near future candidates would be 
forthcoming. 
Mr. Brown said he would now move the amendment 
which he had mentioned, believing it would be much 
more generally beneficial to the whole trade throughout 
the country to award two Junior Scholarships every 
year than to continue the old system. His amendment 
proposed to abolish Senior Scholarships, but it excepted 
all that followed; and he certainly did not agree with the 
conditions, the qualifications of the candidates, and par¬ 
ticularly the paragraph with reference to the subjects of 
examination, which he thought might fairly be extended 
with great benefit to the candidates themselves. 
Mr. Williams said the words “least favoured by for¬ 
tune” had been introduced into the recommendations 
simply because they were in the draft deed, and therefore 
the Committee thought it best to retain them. He, for 
himself, did not like them. At the same time it simply 
meant this, that if two men had equal marks the award 
should be given to the poorer man. It should be borne 
in mind that it was simply a question of age, and whether 
they considered it was as desirable to take a man of 
twenty-four and give him a year’s instruction, as to take 
a young man of eighteen or nineteen. That was the 
practical way of looking at it. He quite agreed it was 
desirable to advance science, but they ought principally 
to advance pharmacy. As to keeping faith with the sub¬ 
scribers of the fund, he could only say they had the solici¬ 
tor’s opinion in their favour, and the original subscribers 
would have no cause to complain. 
Mr. Hills said the deed had never been completed. 
Mr. Williams said he had no objection, in order to 
save needless division, to withdraw his resolution in 
favour of the amendment. 
Mr. Sandeord said he looked through the deed from 
end to end, and could not find any words in it authorizing 
them to alter the institution of the scholarships ; the 
Council had only power to alter the arrangements for 
the examinations. He contended that if the deed had 
been executed, they would not have been able to abolish 
the Senior Scholarships, and although they might do it 
legally in consequence of the deed not having been 
completed, he thought there was still a moral objection. 
Mr. Brown’s amendment was then put as an original 
motion, and carried by a majority of 12 to 8. 
Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act. 
The President said there was in the last number of 
the Journal an Editorial note headed “New Adulteration 
Act,” referring to a letter in which a doubt had been 
expressed, as to the eligibility of pharmaceutical che¬ 
mists to be appointed as analysts under the Act; and the 
question was raised, whether the wording of the Act 
should be strictly interpreted so as to exclude pharma¬ 
ceutical chemists. Now, it having been pointed out to 
him that if this were not settled, it might deprive some 
of their members of the opportunity of being appointed as 
analysts under this Act, he had requested their solicitor 
to attend and give his opinion as to what was the real 
legal meaning of the word “ medical” in the Adultera¬ 
tion Act. In his view it did not refer to the special 
knowledge possessed by a medical man, but simply to a 
knowledge of medical substances, or of materia medica. 
He would, however, ask the solicitor to state his opinion 
upon the matter. 
Mr. Flux (solicitor) said he had referred not only 
to the Act in question, but to section 34 of the Medical 
Act, which bore upon the question, and he had put his 
opinion into writing as follows :— 
“As to the Appointment of Analysts under the Statute 35 
and 36 Victoria , cap. 74. 
“I consider that appointments of pharmaceutical 
chemists, or chemists and druggists, who may in the 
opinion of the appointors bo ‘ persons possessing com¬ 
petent medical, chemical, and microscopical knowledge,’ 
will be within the letter and in accordance with the 
spirit and intention of the statute. 
“Had the intention been to exclude persons not 
medical practitioners , words of description in accord¬ 
ance with statute 21 and 22 Victoria, cap. 90, sec. 34, 
would have been used. 
“ ‘ Chemical knowledge ’ is not in fact and is not by 
law presumed to be limited to registered ‘ chemists and 
druggists,’ and likewise ‘ medical knowledge ’ is not, 
in fact or by law presumed to be limited to ‘ medical 
practitioners.’ Knowledge of materia medica appears 
to me to be ‘ medical knowledge ;’ the statute which de¬ 
fines the examinations of pharmaceutical chemists and 
chemists and druggists (15 and 26 Viet. cap. 56) speaks 
of knowledge in materia medica and in pharmaceutical 
and general chemistry, as essential in the examined per¬ 
sons, and excludes ‘ the theory and practice of medicine.’ 
The Pharmacy Act, 1868 (incorporated with the 35th 
and 36th Viet. cap. 74), in sec. 17, speaks of ‘medicine 
dispensed by a person registered under this Act,’ and in 
sec. 24, ‘ of articles usually taken or sold as medicines,’ 
thus contemplating the dispensing and selling of medi¬ 
cine by chemists and druggists. The law assumes that 
every man has knowledge of the articles in which he 
deals, and it must be considered to assume knowledge of 
medicines or medical knowledge in a recognized dis¬ 
penser or seller of medicine. 
“ The competency required is competency ‘ to analyse 
and I believe that the true intention of the statute is 
to authorize the appointment of any person whomsoever, 
who may possess competent microscopical knowledge, 
in combination with competent medical knowledge and 
competent chemical knowledge for analyses, and that 
the competency as to medicine and chemistry is to be 
ascertained in the same way as competency as to the 
microscope, viz., as a question of fact and not by refe¬ 
rence to any register. 
“ Wm. Flux. 
“ 3, East India Avenue Road, 
2nd October, 1872.” 
