July 15, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS 
51 
SATURDAY, JULY 15, 1S71. 
Communications for this Journal, and hooks for review, etc., 
should he addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of tlic Journal should he sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, TV.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, TV. Envelopes indorsed u Bharm. Journ." 
PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS. 
The proposal introduced by Professor Parses, 
seconded by Professor Christison, and carried by a 
considerable majority of tlie Medical Council, to the 
effect that pharmacy should form an early subject of 
the student’s curriculum, and that therapeutics should 
be taught as a separate branch at a later period, 
was justly described by Dr. Andrew Wood as one 
of the most important measures which that body had 
ever discussed and passed. In most schools, south 
of the Tweed particularly, the two subjects were 
taught together, and at a stage of the student’s career 
when he could derive least profit from the study. In 
others, pharmacy was taught to the almost entire 
exclusion of therapeutics, or vice versa, according to 
the taste or convenience of the lecturer. This un¬ 
satisfactory state of matters comes to an end as soon 
as the licensing and teaching bodies adopt (as they 
can hardly refuse to do) the proposal of their 
representatives in the Council. 
Scarcely less important than this innovation on 
previous academic arrangements, was the suggestion 
also introduced by Dr. Parkes, that pharmacy should 
be taught in the tutorial or practical method, and 
not, as is so often done, from the professorial chair. 
This latter method was justly denounced by Sir 
Dominic Corrigan as preposterous,—the students 
acquiring painfully in the form of lectures what 
could far mere conveniently be learned from a book, 
or, best of all, from tutorial instruction and demon¬ 
stration in a well-appointed laboratory, or even shop. 
The time, indeed, is not far distant when the two 
subjects—pharmacy and therapeutics—will not only 
be taught separately in the medical student’s course, 
but will finally be apportioned to distinct callings; 
the former to the duly qualified pharmaceutical che¬ 
mist, the latter to the duly qualified medical prac¬ 
titioner. Division of labour is becoming more and 
more the rule in the professions,—in none more than 
in the healing art. The time allotted to the medical 
student for perfecting himself in the sciences preli¬ 
minary to liis purely professional studies is all too 
brief for the purpose; and his educators are more 
and more convinced that certain subjects should 
either be entirely dropped from his curriculum, or 
relegated to an inferior place in it. They are the 
less reluctant to advocate such a policy when they 
find that those subjects belong more properly to 
other callings, with whose members they may safely 
be left in trust. Such a subject is pharmacy. The 
public will have as much confidence in the medicines, 
prepared by the duly qualified pharmaceutist as in 
the prescriptions enjoined by the duly qualified prac¬ 
titioner,—certainly more confidence in each exer¬ 
cising his proper functions apart than attempting to 
fulfil the functions of both. The guarantee that 
drugs are prepared secundum artem is as valid as the- 
guarantee that they are prescribed secundum artem ; 
and it seems useless to insist on medical students, 
qualifying themselves for the former when they have 
but too little time to qualify themselves for the latter.. 
POISON REGULATIONS. 
It will have been evident to our readers that the- 
amendments introduced into the Pharmacy Bill by 
Mr. Forster indicate on his part a much greater 
disposition to consider the objections raised to the 
Bill in its original form than was apparent when 
the deputation waited on him on the 24th ult. With¬ 
out attempting to discuss the question whether the 
amendments sufficiently meet the objections that 
have been urged, we think it right to state that 
some opponents of the Bill are now disposed to take 
a more favourable view of it. 
The action hitherto taken in reference to the Bill 
certainly indicated that it was opposed by a majority 
of members of the Society and of the trade, and the 
letters published this week will show that there is 
still a strong opposition to it. However, those who- 
look with favour on the Bill are exerting themselves, 
and it is but just to them as well as to the opposing 
party, that we should make this known. 
We have been requested by Mr. Sandford to 
publish a letter which he has addressed to the Local 
Secretaries of the Society, calling upon them and 
the members generally to exercise their independent 
judgment on the amended Bill, but urging various 
considerations which, in his opinion, should induce 
them to waive further opposition. 
We have also been requested by the Secretaries 
of the two Chemists’ Defence Associations to publish 
a circular which they have addressed to the trade, 
stating reasons for recommending uncompromising 
opposition to the amended Bill. 
Both these documents appear to be of such im¬ 
portance as to claim a prominent place in the Jour- 
nal, and therefore we print them together here in 
the order they reached us, and we commend them 
equally to the careful consideration of our readers. 
“ 47, Piccadilly, London, 
“ July 1( )th, 1371. 
“ Sir,—My long and intimate association with the 
Pharmaceutical Society, my seven years’ experience ot 
the duties of the Presidency, and my personal connec¬ 
tion with the Pharmacy Act of 1868, embolden me to- 
