.January 4, I 873 .J THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
529 
CJje Journal. 
- ♦- 
SATURDAY, JANUARY 4 , 1873 . 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates resqiectmg the 
'transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, JF.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street , London, W. Envelopes indorsed u Pharm. Journ .” 
1872 . 
Though it is the business of a journal like this to 
have regard only to the] more immediate present, 
it is allowable, in passing from one year to another, 
to deviate from ordinary routine by taking a re¬ 
view of the past, counting our gains and losses, 
mid summarizing the events, the achievements, and 
the efforts that have marked the last page of our 
pharmaceutical history. 
Another turn of the glass of time! Another con¬ 
venient standpoint for a retrospect at the beaten 
paths, for taking stock of what has been accom¬ 
plished, and determining whether it affords ground 
for congratulation, or gives reason for regret! Such 
a review of the pharmaceutical year just closed is 
here laid before our readers; and notwithstanding 
that outside “inversum contristat Aquarius annum,” 
•and inside there are still subjects of difficulty 
to be dealt with, v r e think that, on the whole, the 
body of pharmacists may take heart and go for¬ 
ward. 
To speak first of matters concerning the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society. After the termination of the poi¬ 
son regulation contest, towards the end of 1871, at¬ 
tention was turned to the subject of education, and 
•early in 187 2 this became the principal topic of the 
year. Mr. Schacht having, in 1870, started a dis¬ 
cussion as to the duty of the Pharmaceutical So¬ 
ciety in relation to education, with a declaration 
that the scheme previously adopted by the Society for 
carrying out pharmaceutical education had “ failed 
largely,” and having afterwards followed up this 
.•subject in his address at the opening of the Session 
1870-71, and at the Annual Meeting in 1871, it has 
since been dealt with by Messrs. Reynolds, Baynes, 
Radley, Pickering, and others, and the claims of 
the country members of the trade upon the Society’s 
funds for the purpose of education have been fully 
as well as ably urged. But notwithstanding the state¬ 
ment that the country was fully roused upon the 
subject, Mr. Mackay was able at the Annual Meet¬ 
ing of last year to illustrate the care requisite in 
dealing with tliis question, by pointing to numerous 
localities where means of education had been pro¬ 
vided and where students were not forthcoming. 
■Our pages have unfortunately afforded repeated evi- j 
dences of this fact, and a signal instance of the kind 
was quoted only a fortnight since. 
So long as this state of things prevails little rea¬ 
son can be shown for distributing the surplus funds 
of the Society among provincial associations to sup¬ 
port the mere semblance of schools. The attention 
of pharmacists should rather be turned to that ad¬ 
vancement from within which the President of the 
Pharmaceutical Conference did not hesitate to say 
might now be fairly expected of them. And—quoting 
from the same authority—lest the accumulation of 
surplus income might, contrary to the spirit of the 
Society’s founder, represent “ good left undone,” 
there seems ample scope for its useful investment in 
science and intellectual wealth, by affording facilities 
for original investigation, or by establishing scholar¬ 
ships as suggested by Mr. Ekin. 
As might have been expected, the general subject 
of pharmaceutical education in the provinces has 
been repeatedly under the consideration of the 
Council. In July, the Provincial Education Com¬ 
mittee presented a Report recommending that the 
scheme drawn up by Mr. Schacht, and based upon 
the Government “ Science and Art ” system of “ pay¬ 
ment for results,” should be, in principle, adopted. 
That scheme was referred back to the Committee for 
further consideration, and it was hoped that by its 
publication, suggestions from members throughout 
the country might be brought under the notice of the 
Committee. Though amongst the many who have 
responded to tliis appeal it might appear invidious 
to mention individuals, exception may be made con¬ 
cerning the paper of Professor Redwood —in justice 
to his experience—and the communication of Mr. 
Richard Reynolds as the exponent of a former 
scheme. We believe, however, the idea that it is 
the duty of the Pharmaceutical Society to originate 
or provide means for the Pharmaceutical education 
of the mass of the trade is now pretty well exploded; 
and the present outcome of the discussion may be 
summed up in the recent words of Mr. Schacht at 
Bristol, that “it would be unwise in the executive of 
the Pharmaceutical Society to adopt, at the present 
moment, any scheme whatever.” From all that 
has been said and written on this subject there 
may, however, be gathered the recognition, more 
or less involuntary, of the fact that, although we are 
still destitute of any adequate educational system, 
the work of organizing such a system must be done 
by the pharmacists of the future rather than by the 
Society of the present day. The School of Pharmacy 
in Bloomsbury Square, though quite inadequate to 
meet the requirements even of those who are seeking 
education, may serve as a model and a guide in the 
attempt to carry out the idea of establishing centres 
of education throughout the country, and on that 
ground alone it should receive the most liberal sup¬ 
port, rather than the almost envious appreciation w r e 
have lately seen conferred upon it. 
