May 3V 1873.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
959 
Ifw §harmamtittal Journal. 
SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1S73. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal shoidd be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, W. Envelopes indorsed “Pharm. Journ.” 
THE MINOR EXAMINATION BYE-LAW. 
Though we had not space last week to comment 
on the discussion which took place on that most im¬ 
portant alteration of the Bye-laws affecting the ex¬ 
aminations, we take the earliest opportunity of refer¬ 
ring to it, since it is highly desirable no misconception 
should continue to prevail on the subject. 
Mr. Hampson’s opposition to clause 16 of section 
10 of the amended bye-laws was based upon the 
ground that its provisions were illegal, and the argu¬ 
ments he brought forward in support of this view 
had been previously urged by him at the Council 
meetings on three separate occasions. He contended 
in regard to the Minor examination, that since the 
examiners are, by clause 6 of the Pharmacy Act, 
1868, “ required to examine all such persons as shall 
tender themselves for examination” under the pro¬ 
visions of the Act, it was not in the power of the 
Society to approve and confirm a bye-law requiring 
candidates for examination to satisfy the examiners 
that for three years they had been either apprenticed 
to the business, or registered students, or otherwise 
practically engaged in the translation and dispensing 
of prescriptions. 
In taking this ground Mr. Hampson appears alto¬ 
gether to have overlooked the provision of a subse¬ 
quent passage in the same clause to the effect that 
“ the examination aforesaid shall be such as is pro¬ 
vided under the Pharmacy Act (1852) for the purposes 
of a qualification to be registered as Assistant under 
that Act, or as the same may be varied from time to 
time by any bye-law to be made in accordance with 
the Pharmacy Act as amended by this Act” (1868). 
He appears to have ignored entirely the power thus 
given to vary the nature of the Minor examination, 
and of the requirements to be demanded of candidates 
by the examiners, and, as it seems to us, it is only by 
doing this that he has conceived the idea of “ille¬ 
gality ” in regard to the new bye-law. 
The passage above quoted clearly gives power to 
alter the Minor examination; and if we seek to 
ascertain what is to be the ruling principle of such 
alterations it may be learnt from the preamble of the 
Act, stating the expediency of chemists and druggists 
possessing competent practical knowledge of their 
business, and that they should be duly examined as 
to their practical knowledge. The object of the 
Pharmacy Act, 1852, was precisely similar, and the 
same may be said of the Society’s Charter of In¬ 
corporation. With these facts before us it seems 
scarcely possible to comprehend how it can be 
argued that it is contrary to the intention of those 
who framed the Acts of Parliament for the exa¬ 
miners to require from candidates such evidence of 
their practical knowledge as would be reasonably 
afforded by the fact of their having been engaged in 
the business. This would be demanded by any one 
engaging an assistant; and surely it is not too much 
to ask before conferring a qualification to carry on 
business independently. 
Taking into consideration these facts therefore, the 
groundwork of Mr. Hampson’s opposition vanishes, 
and the reason for it is entirely removed when it is 
remembered that the alteration he disputes was re¬ 
commended to the Council by the Board of Examiners 
as a result of their experience, and as being necessary 
to render the examination more efficient as a test of 
practical knowledge. 
Acting upon this recommendation the Council, 
after a long discussion, provided for the framing of 
amended bye-laws as to the examination, and instructed 
the Parliamentary Committee to consider the bye¬ 
laws in regard to the legal power they conferred. On 
the report of this Committee the alteration here 
more especially referred to was adopted, together with 
others. The bye-laws embodying these alterations 
were approved, in accordance with the provisions ot 
the charter, at three meetings of Council, also by a 
Special General Meeting called for the purpose; lastly, 
in conformity with the statute, 1852, as amended by 
the Act, 1868, they are now in course of being sub¬ 
mitted to the Privy Council for final confirmation, 
and in the event of their being so confirmed, they 
will have the same force as any portion of the 
original statutes themselves. 
In the course of discussion on this subject several 
collateral issues have been raised, to which it is 
barely necessary to refer again here, excepting in the 
case of the argument Mr. Hampson founded on a 
supposed inconsistency in the opinion expressed by 
the Society’s solicitor while the amendment of the 
Minor examination was before the Parliamentary 
Committee. Mr. Hampson’s letter, at p. 819 of this 
Journal, gives all the details, and we may confine our¬ 
selves to pointing out that the difficulty he there 
speaks of arose entirely from his own misconception. 
The distinction between the originally-proposed bye¬ 
law and the one now adopted is in no way subtle, 
but palpable and positive. The former—objected to 
by Mr. Flux —proposed to require that every one 
admitted to the Minor examination should have been 
“ registered or employed as an apprentice or student 
for at least three years previously,” and in this form 
the bye-law would, as pointed out by Mr. Flux, 
have varied from the intention of the Act that the 
examination should be freely open to all the world. 
However, in the bye-law as now confirmed, admissi¬ 
bility to the Minor examination is not thus specially 
