[October 5,1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
279 
tional institutes, and the production of certain tickets in proof 
of this, being held as sufficient to pass our young men with¬ 
out the necessity of their examination by ourselves as a 
society, I will only point out how futile such a test has 
hitherto proved in the learned professions. 
Then as to my own remedy, I confess at once that I don’t 
know one ! Hence the scheme I ventured to bring under 
the notice of the Council so far back as March last, and re¬ 
peated, in Committee, in June. 
We find everywhere a cry for aid in educating our young 
men so that they may pass the various examinations required. 
Well, we have the money. The money in our coffers is not 
ours or the Council’s. The guinea of the humblest pharmacist 
in the most remote district of the land, is as heavy and as 
bright as is that of the very prince, be he who he may, of 
pharmacists, in our great metropolis itself. 
Let us, after, as all are willing that we should, amply 
providing for all our requirements in London, see what our 
balance-sheet shows we can spare for this purpose; put it 
aside, let it be £1000 or £2000, and invite applications for it. 
The securi ty, which I hold to be ample, that the money be 
well spent, is that before it be obtainable, the applicants, who 
must be well attested members of our Society, must have 
•dipped their hands into their own pockets for a sum equal to 
or double that asked from the central fund. 
I object to Mr. Reynolds’ scheme, because he insists on a 
certain number of educational centres, as I do to London, as 
the ‘‘schoolfor all the country,” and which others hold to be 
the right state of things. The evils of one school apply to a 
dozen, or any fixed number of schools, though in a less 
degree. My proposal leaves the whole onus on each individual 
member of our Society. If they, on such a scheme being 
adopted, fail to establish schools suited to meet their special 
case, their own money will be undisturbed, and the blame 
will rest on the proper shoulders. 
I fear Mr. Schaeht’s scheme of paying for results wfill fail, 
for two reasons :—First, because it asks me to put my hands 
in my pocket for the whole sum to be expended during the 
entire educational period, and to trust for repayment of a por¬ 
tion of this outlay to the passing of the proposed new test 
examinations with honours; second, and largely, because of its 
putting one more hedge in the way of of our future druggists 
attaining to the position now enjoyed by so many, without 
having had to pass through any such test. At present there 
arc three examinations to be gone through, and paid for, 
before any new entrants can attain to the position of pharma¬ 
ceutical chemist. If Mr. Schacht’s proposals be adopted, as 
he wishes they should, all new entrants w r ill have tour 
examinations to pass. Now, I believe that the fear of these ex¬ 
aminations having to be faced, even where there is ample 
qualifications, deters and hinders many from entering into our 
ranks. 
In closing these most hasty notes, I must be candid, and 
say that in principle I agree with Mr. Mackay, that there is 
no inherent obligation resting on our Society to provide edu¬ 
cation for our apprentices or assistants. No other body does; 
and the time will by-and-by come when, I hope, we shall be 
able to cease doing so also. But still I advocate the most liberal 
use of our funds for this end now, because the position of our 
assistants at this time is altogether anomalous. We have 
suddenly and greatly raised the standard of qualifications re¬ 
quired in our young men, and have made it a costly process. 
Our young men have not the means, financially or otherwise, 
of qualifying themselves without some extraneous help, 
and hitherto we, the masters, have not afforded them these 
means. It is high time that we should at least put it in their 
power to acquire the education necessary to get them out of 
their present position of comparative helplessness.—I am, 
yours very truly, 
Daniel Feazek. 
Professor Attfield. 
Dresden, Staffordshire, August 12th, 1872. 
Sir,—Having formerly had some experience in the subject, 
as Secretary of the Liverpool Chemists’ Association, and 
still feeling a warm interest in anything which tends to the 
•elevation of pharmacy, by the extension of sound pharmaceu¬ 
tical education, I venture to express my appreciation of the 
views you have so ably enounced. I cannot find words to 
express my utter detestation of the wide-spread system of 
cramming, which I believe is doing more than anything else 
to counteract the good effect of compulsory examination. All 
over the country advertisements are found in the newspapers 
of crammers for the Preliminary, and your remarks on the same 
system in the further stages are not at all too strong. From 
what I see and hear in this neighbourhood, and no doubt it is 
the same elsewhere, the examinations are looked upon as 
“ a great bore,” “ a nuisance,” etc., both by the young men 
and their employers. No idea of acquiring scientific know¬ 
ledge for its own sake, or for the purpose of enabling the 
young man to discharge his duties with credit to himself and 
advantage to the public, ever seems to enter the head of either 
employer or employed. The great concern is how to “ do ” 
the Minor, and a very simple plan is offered. I cannot help 
thinking that the success of the plan must be largely owing 
to some defect in the examinations, or to some default of 
the examiners; but let that be as it may, the question is, how 
to check or stop it. I am free to admit that I do not like the 
idea of compulsory attendance at lectures being required 
before being admitted to examination. I should prefer a 
system of free-trade in this as in other things. No question 
asked as to where, how, or when the candidate acquired his 
knowledge, provided it can be ascertained beyond reasonable 
doubt that he really possesses it. Further, there are many 
young men who are willing to learn, and employers willing 
and able to teach all that is required, without compulsory at¬ 
tendance at lectures. It is rather unjust to deprive these 
parties of the credit due to them. 
Still it is better that this comparatively small number 
should be compelled to make use of other means (which they 
would in most cases, be the first to do voluntarily) than that 
things should remain as they are; it is quite notorious that 
numbers of young men utterly unqualified, are sent out from 
the examination room, with the stamp of qualification upon 
them, to the injury of their employers, the public, and them¬ 
selves (for having “done” the Minor, they fancy they must 
be very clever fellows, and “ a little learning is a dangerous 
thing”). All attempts at voluntary education in which I 
have taken part, heard, or read of, have been failures. A oung 
men will not attend lectures, or avail themselves of other 
means of education. They are, as a body, utterly apathetic 
and indifferent, the certainty of “ getting through ” is all 
they care about. “ Bother qualification, if somebody gets 
me through,” a young man said to me a short time since. 
On the whole, t hen, I see no other way out of the difficulty 
than by the plan you propose: requiring certificates of having 
undergone a defined course of pharmaceutical training under 
properly qualified teachers as a sine qua non to being ad¬ 
mitted to examination, wilL effectually crush cram, stir up 
a generous feeling of rivalry amongst the centres of educa¬ 
tion, and shut out from the circle of pharmacy all who are 
unable or unwilling to qualify themselves for a place there. 
My great fear is that the Council does not possess, and 
could not, in the face of such an opposition as would be raised, 
obtain powers to carry out your proposal, but I hope and 
trust it will be done. 
Yours very truly, 
J. Attfield, Esq., Ph.D. Tnos. D. Walkee. 
Examination Fees. 
Sir,—The statements which I made in a letter ad¬ 
dressed to you, August 27, and published on page 180, 
upon the desirableness of making such alterations in the pre¬ 
sent Examination Fees as might tend to the strengthening 
of our Society, which at present threatens to decrease rather 
than to increase in numerical and therefore political power, 
have called forth a counter statement from my friend Mr. 
Carteighe, to which I would ask your permission at once to 
reply. I exceedingly regret that Mr. Carteiglie’s explana¬ 
tions are not of so convincing a character as to allow me to 
retract what I have stated; had they been so, I would most 
gladly have admitted my error in judgment, and rejoiced in 
the prosperity of the Society; but facts are stubborn things, 
and the facts I desire now to lay before your readers, culled 
from “official documents,” are such as will, I think, proie to 
demonstration that my statements were not “ founded on 
fallacies,” nor were my arguments based upon “ a series of 
mistakes.” 
Figures speak volumes, and at once convey facts and ideas 
to the mind with a clearness which the most talented writer 
fails to accomplish by mere verbal explanation. I hai e, 
therefore, extracted from the published annual statements 
those items referring to the question in hand for the past 
