December 23, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
511 
franswtwns of % ffoOTitmtol JSmeij. 
EXAMINATIONS IN LONDON. 
December 18 tli, 19 th, and 20th , 1872. 
Present—Messrs. Allchin, Barnes, Carteiglie, Crack - 
nell, Davenport, Edwards, Gale, Haselden, Ince, Linford, 
Martindale, and Southall. 
Dr. Greenhow was present on the 19th on behalf of 
the Privy Council. 
Major Examination. 
Twelve candidates were examined. Five failed; the. fol¬ 
lowing seven passed and were declared duly qualified 
to be registered as Pharmaceutical Chemists:—• 
*Hanbury, Frederick Janson . .London. 
*Collishaw, John .Nottingham. 
# Edwards, David .London. 
Jones, David...Rhyl. 
Nuthall, Edwin .Norwich. 
Houghton, Robert William .. Bermuda. 
Trist, Richard .Plymouth. 
Minor Examination. 
Fifty-one candidates were examined. Twenty failed; 
the following thirty-one passed, and were declared duly 
qualified to be registered as Chemists and Druggists:— 
* Richardson, Edward ..Dresden, Staffs. 
*Samson, Ernest ..Bristol. 
* Smith, Arthur Harry.Eccleshall. 
*Marson, William.Stafford. 
Price, Rees .Neath. 
Newhill, John William ...... Huddersfield. 
^ ( Almgill, John ...Bedale. 
| < Scoley, Thomas Edward.Boston. 
w ( Walton, Thomas .Bishopwearmouth. 
Smith, John Jacob .Yeovil. 
•3 ( Ellis, Robert.Aberystwith. 
If ( Roberts, William Henry.Bath. 
Deacon, Henry James ........Norwood. 
j. ( Lansdale, John Anstey .High Wycombe. 
|) Lunn, Thomas.Worcester. 
« ( Smith, Tenison.Cambridge. 
Jones, James Parry ..Newcastle. 
Mellor, John Gilbert .Southport. 
Fletcher, Frederick William . .Totton. 
•3 ( Robinson, Richard Atkinson .. London. 
=■ { Thomas, Llewellyn.Swansea. 
Smith, Nathan ..King’s Lynn. 
Hannah, Charles.Abergele. 
Hardcastle, Stephen Barnabas Knaresborough. 
Sharrah, Richard... Hull. 
Nicholls, Theophilus .. Lower Mitcham. 
Evans, Evan.Cardiff. 
•a ( Ashwell, Lawrence Thomas .. London. 
d \ Betts, Samuel .Oadby. 
Burder, Robert.Manchester. 
Sparshott, Harry.Birmingham. 
The above names are arranged in order of merit. 
Preliminary Examination. 
Certificates were received from the following in lieu 
of this examination :— 
Certificates of the University of Oxford. 
Hey wood, John Henry .Lincoln. 
Walker, George .Liverpool. 
EDINBURGH MEETING.—NORTH BRITISH 
BRANCH. 
The second meeting of the present session took place 
in the Society’s rooms, St. Giles Street, on the evening 
of Wednesday, 11th December, at 8.30. There was a 
* Passed with Honours. 
large attendance, the room being crowded ; Mr. Baildon 7 
President, in the chair. 
After a few remarks by the Chairman, Professor A. 
Crum Brown, of the Edinburgh University, was intro¬ 
duced to the meeting, who delivered a very interesting 
and eloquent address on “ The Relation of Chemistry to 
Pharmacy.” The Professor occupied fully an hour, but 
as he had no manuscript we are only enabled to give 
the following short abstract ^from one portion of the 
lecture:— 
Pharmacy is an art, the art of preparing and dispens¬ 
ing drugs. The principles of this art, like the princi¬ 
ples of other arts, are derived from various sciences, and 
as these sciences give help to Pharmacy by supplying' 
it with principles, so they derive help from it in the 
form of facts and observations. Among the sciences' 
thus related to pharmacy these may be mentioned:—- 
botany, zoology, and chemistry. Pharmacy derives 
from botany the means of recognizing and identifying- 
the various plants used in medicine. Botany has received 
compensation from pharmacy in the minute and careful 
study of plants and parts of plants which would other¬ 
wise have been left comparatively uninvestigated. The 
oldest lists and descriptions of plants are “ herbals,” and 
these were made with a purely pharmaceutical object. 
Similarly, though to a smaller extent, zoology and phar¬ 
macy are related. But chemistry has a much more 
intimate relation to pharmacy than either botany or 
zoology. The term ‘ chemist and druggist ’ shows that 
this relation is generally and popularly recognized. 
No one would call a pharmacist a “zoologist and drug¬ 
gist ” and the term “ botanist and druggist,” or any 
similar phrase, is reserved for a class of persons with 
whom we do not wish to claim any relation. 
The reason of this more intimate relation is obvious 
when we consider that, while pharmacy owes to zoology 
and botany some of its raw materials and the means of 
testing their genuineness, all pharmaceutical processes and 
operations, which are not purely mechanical, are che¬ 
mical. 
Thus nearly every fact or observation in pharmacy is- 
of chemical interest, and a very large number of the 
discoveries of chemistry are of use to the pharmacist. 
Indeed, as every science originates in one or more arts, 
pharmacy may be said to be one of the roots of chemis¬ 
try, the other being metallurgy. Chemists were for a, 
long time the producers of metals and drugs, and their 
aim was to discover the philosopher’s stone and the. 
elixir of life. This relation may be very well seen if we 
consider what parts of chemistry have been most 
minutely studied, when we shall find that they are those- 
of special pharmaceutical or metallurgical interest. 
It is desirable that a druggist should have a good 
knowledge of the natural history sciences ; it is essential 
that he should be a chemist. 
As an instance of an eminent chemist and druggist. 
Dr. Crum Brown gave a short sketch of the life of Carl 
Wilhelm Scheele. 
Born, 1742, the son of a merchant at Stralsund, ho 
was apprenticed in his fifteenth year to _ a druggist 
at Gothenburg. He remained as apprentice and as 
assistant in Gothenburg till 1765. During these eight 
years he acquired a very complete acquaintance with 
chemical analysis, devoting all his leisure to the study of 
chemistry, reading such books as he could obtain, and 
experimenting for himself with such means as hie 
master’s shop afforded. From 1765 till 1775 (wdien he 
obtained the management of a pharmaceutical establish¬ 
ment in K oping, a small Swedish town) he acted as- 
assistant in various places—Malmo, Stockholm and 
Upsala. He died at Hoping in 1786 at the early age of 
forty-three. 
Always a poor man, with limited means of study and ot 
experiment, Scheele, in his short life, succeeded in making 
a larger number of important discoveries in chemistry 
than any other chemist before or after him. He discovered 
