March 8, 1973.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
711 
to the Modified examination, which in future would be 
entirely abrogated; and the qualification would, he shown 
by the candidate passing the Minor examination, which 
could he made strict and practical. It lay with the ex¬ 
aminers to test candidates in any way they thought 
proper; and if they could pass the examination, no certi¬ 
ficate of servitude ought to be required in any shape or 
form. He perfectly understood that it was desirable, 
and most members would insist in their private capacity, 
on an assistant having at least three years’ experience, 
but what they did in their individual establishments 
must not be made the foundation for a formal bye-law 
when opposed to the Act of Parliament. 
M r, Mackay supported the bye-law as it stood, and 
thought that the daily practice of each individual should 
be the guide of what should be recommended to others. 
He looked upon this proposition which Mr. Hampson 
now sought to set aside as one of the best in. the new 
code. Three years formed the minimum time in which 
any one could acquire a practical knowledge of the 
business, and that term ought to be insisted upon. In 
his own [establishment young men were never taken a3 
apprentices unless they agreed to serve for five years. 
Mr. Schacht said these regulations came from, the 
Board of Examiners, upon whom the responsibility 
rested of testing the candidates; and unless for some 
very strong reason their recommendations ought to be 
adopted. These gentlemen stated over and over again 
that they felt it would be a great assistance to them in 
giving credentials to candidates who came before them, 
if this regulation were introduced. And he might men¬ 
tion in corroboration of this that at the recent confer¬ 
ence, at Brighton, Dr. Michael Foster said that one of 
the most arduous portions of his public duty was to 
properly estimate the capabilities of candidates present¬ 
ing themselves before him, and that he was greatly 
assisted in so doing when he had some knowledge of 
their antecedents. 
Mr. Frazer supported the amendment, not so much 
because he thought it was in any way sailing very near 
to the law, but because it appeared to him that it was an 
unnecessary restriction upon trade, tending to. add 
another to the many difficulties which now existed in the 
way of getting assistants. He deprecated the age being 
limited to twenty-one for the same reason; but he should 
certainly support the amendment. 
Mr. Williams said that the bye-law as passed at the 
last Council would have excluded a young man who had 
been dispenser to a surgeon, or to an hospital, or any 
post of that kind, which there was no wish, to do ; and 
the solicitor had therefore taken some pains to alter 
the words so as to include all those who really had a 
practical knowledge of the business. 
Mr. Hills said three years was the very least a young 
man should spend practically learning the business; 
and, in fact, his experience was that the longer a young 
man was engaged in the trade the more interested 
was he in the studies connected with it, and the more 
efficient he became. He certainly considered three years 
was the minimum. 
Mr. Stoddart said there was no difficulty in "getting 
young men, the only difficulty was in getting good ones ; 
and that would, he thought, be diminished rather than in¬ 
creased by the new regulation. 
The Vice-President also thought that the proposed 
bye-law would have the effect of making fyoung men 
learn their business thoroughly, before coming.up to 
pass the examination, and that a better class of assistants 
would be the result. 
Mr . Hampson said he must not be understood as in¬ 
tending to say a word against the advisability of. ap¬ 
prenticeship. What he objected to was what he believed 
to be the illegality of the action abou 1 . to be taken. He 
valued experience as much as any one, but as,to this 
being a recommendation of the examiners he. contended 
it was the duty of the Council to subject their proposi¬ 
tion to the test of argument and discussion, and decide 
for themselves. He desired to leave the trade as free as 
possible, and to obey the statute. And he also thought 
there had been no argument of any kind brought for- 
ward to show the necessity of the change about to be in- 
troduced. The examiners were constantly rejecting 
large numbers of young men who were not able to pass, 
which showed that they were making the examination 
more practical and stringent. That was quite sufficient 
without drawing a hard and fast line, which they were 
now asked to adopt. 
The amendment was then put with the following 
result :— 
For —Messrs. Frazer, Hampson and Urwick. 
Against — Messrs. Atherton, Betty, Bottle, Brown, 
Greenish, Haselden, Hills, Mackay, Radley, Sandford, 
Savage, Schacht, Shaw, Stoddart and Williams. 
The amendment was therefore negatived. 
Mr. Frazer then moved an amendment for omitting 
the clause limiting the age to twenty-one years ; but as 
he failed to find a seconder, it fell to the ground. 
The original proposition was then put and carried. 
Regulations made in Pursuance op Section 9 of the 
Pharmacy Act, 1868, for Regulating the Register. 
The Secretary presented the following Form of Re¬ 
gulation and Forms of Application for Restoration to 
the Register, under the provision set forth in section 10 
of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, of the names of such persons 
whose names have been erased from the Register in 
pursuance of the provisions of the said section. The 
forms had been prepared by the Society’s solicitor:— 
“ Application for restoration to the Register, pursuant 
to clause 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868,. shall be 
made by a writing signed by the applicant and 
attested by a person whose name appears on the 
Register for the time being, and shall be supported 
by a Statutory Declaration made by the applicant, 
verifying that he is the person who was formerly 
registered, and disclosing his addresses and occupa¬ 
tions from the first day of the year of publication of 
the printed Register in which his name last appeared 
to the date of his application, together with words 
importing that his name has not been erased from the 
said Register for any offence against the Act; and 
no such application shall be received by the Regis¬ 
trar unless accompanied by the sum of One Guinea, 
to be received by him for the purposes of the 
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain in dis¬ 
charge of all expenses incurred in relation to the 
erasure of the name of the applicant and the pre¬ 
sentation of the application.” 
To the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great 
Britain. 
“I the undersigned, whose name appeared in the Re¬ 
gister of the names of Pharmaceutical Chemists 
and Chemists and Druggists, printed and published 
in year 18 , under the direction of the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society of Great Britain, pursuant to the Act 
passed in the 31st and 32nd years of the. reign ot 
Her Majesty Queen Victoria, c. 121, entitled ‘ An 
Act to regulate the Sale of poisons and alter and 
amend the Pharmacy Act 1852,’ by the name and 
description following, that is to say [The name and 
description to he here inserted should correspond wit i 
that in the printed Register ] do hereby make ap¬ 
plication that my name may by your direction be 
restored to the Register of [. Pharmaceutical Chemists 
or Chemists and Druggists], 
“ Dated this day of 18 . 
“ Witness to the signature of 
the said 
Signature M 
Address 
“ Description rohether Pharmaceutical Chemist or Chemist 
and Druggist.” 
