October 21,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
339 
the Society, judiciously and generously applied, would greatly 
stimulate local efforts, and that tn an extent far beyond the 
mere money value of the grant. 
From a lone - experience in national and other schools, I 
can affirm * ne va l ue of independent periodical examinations 
j n r ^mtaining the tone of a school, and I trust that Mr. 
smith’s suggestion will not be lost sight of. Centres of 
examination are also desirable. 
Schools, however, must of necessity precede examiners; it 
appears to me, therefore, that immediate steps should be taken 
to establish, in all large towns at least, efficient schools of 
pharmacy, each working in harmony with a general plan 
approved or arranged by the Council, yet sufficiently elastic 
to admit of ready adaptation to the wants of various localities. 
My own experience leads me to the conclusion that the 
Pharmacy Act is not popular among country chemists; they 
are therefore, in many cases, indifferent to the claims made 
upon them for education, and the work and cost falls upon 
comparatively a small number of the body. Under these 
circumstances, if the Council expects the schools to succeed, 
both moral and material aid must be offered, for a time at 
least, to those willing to engage in the work. 
In Hull we have made a fair start in the matter of techni¬ 
cal education, but I am satisfied we shall not succeed in per¬ 
manently establishing our school of pharmacy without a 
liberal subsidy from the parent Society. So far we have 
gone on in the expectation something would be done, and I 
would fain hope the good time is now coming. 
There are other parts of Mr. Smith’s letter I should like 
to comment upon, but consideration for your space forbids at 
present. 
James Baynes. 
Hull, Oct. 17 th, 1871. 
Sir,'—Mr. Edward Smith, in his paper on “Provincial 
Education,” which appeared in last week’s Journal, divides 
his subject into three heads,—the students, their studies, 
their teachers. To his definition of the first, and his pro¬ 
posed line of action for the third, I would heartily agree, but 
must to some extent differ with him on the second head. 
He would, if I rightly interpret his idea, make it the great 
object of country associations to prepare students for the 
Minor. Working on this principle, they will soon degene¬ 
rate into copies of those London establishments which 
guarantee to prepare gentlemen for their examinations in 
one month; and of those thus prepared, or rather “ crammed,” 
with lists of names and crude facts which just enable them 
to squeeze through the Minor, how many will care (without 
the Association’s help too) to thoroughly master the several 
subjects of study, and go on to the Major? That the cram 
system is that desired by most of the apprentices I readily 
admit, but cannot think that it is the proper one. Let the 
course of study undertaken be thorough, without reference 
to any examination, and though the way be thus made a 
little longer, the student will find that, instead of crossing 
the Minor on a tottering plank, which lands him on the 
other side in a pathless forest, he will cross by a good stone 
bridge, from which a well-macadamized road, along which 
he can travel with ease, leads straight to the Major. 
Norwich , October 16 th. Philip H. Mason. 
The Council of the North British Branch of the 
Pharmaceutical Society. 
Sir,—Having been out of reach of the Journal for a few 
weeks, I have been unable to draw attention so soon as I 
would have liked to Mr. Mackay’s reply to my letter of the 
26th August. In that reply, he says “ That the name (North 
British Branch) was given by Jacob Bell; that it has re¬ 
mained unchallenged for nineteen years;” and “ that it be¬ 
came necessary that a committee should be appointed to look 
after the various matters in connection with the examining 
board.” “These gentlemen,” he says, “formed, and still 
form, the Council at Edinburgh.” May I ask, if Mr. Bell 
bestowed the title “North British Branch,” why they did 
not adhere to it during all these nineteen years which Mr. 
Mackay boasts so much about ? On reading Mr. Mackay’s 
statement I was convinced that there was a discrepancy 
somewhere, and to satisfy myself, as w r ell as to take advan¬ 
tage of the advice tendered by Mr. Mackay, I went over a 
few of the back volumes of the Journal, and found, as I 
expected, that the title “North British Branch” was not 
adopted until 1869. I find that on the evening of Friday, 
17th April, 1868, the “ Edinburgh Pharmaceutical Society ” 
held their annual meeting, Mr. Young, President, in the 
chair, and, amongst other business, Mr. Ainslie was elected 
President. Then, in the 1869-70 volume, I find the report 
of the annual meeting of the “North British Branch” of the 
Pharmaceutical Society, held in Slaney’s Douglass Hotel, on 
Thursday evening, May 27th, 1869, Mr. Ainslie, President, in 
the chair. When was Mr. Ainslie elected President of the 
“ North British Branch,” and when was the high-sounding 
title adopted originally ? Of this we have no record, in the 
Journal at least, though it doubtless exists in Mr. Mackay’s 
brain. Then, again, if Mr. Bell really gave it the high- 
sounding title years ago, does Mr. Mackay mean to insinuate 
that it was his intention that his elected few should keep the 
title exclusively to themselves, and remain in office for life. 
But perhaps our Edinburgh friends will go a step further and 
hand the title down to the third and fourth generation. I 
think, however, this was not Mr. Bell’s intention ; from what 
I have learned of him, he was too open-hearted a gentleman 
to give occasion for any such notion, and if he did say that a 
North British Branch should be started, he meant that it 
should exist on the same footing as the London Council, at 
least that all members of the Society in Scotland should have 
a voice in the election of the Council in Edinburgh, and if, 
as Mr. Mackay says, they have no power to do so, let them 
take the power. * If they had adopted a constitution for 
themselves, and made a small fee, say of os. a year, for the 
title of membership; then no one could object to them using 
the title “ North British” or any other they chose. As it is, 
they are certainly in an anomalous and unenviable position, 
in their using such a high-sounding title, and, at the same 
time, retaining all the privileges and advantages to themselves. 
Mr. Mackay says, that if the members in Scotland claim a 
right to elect the Council, so will the English members; but 
I do not see it in that light, what was the use of legislating, 
specially for Scotland, if she was not to have exclusive rights? 
More especially when everything done by the “North 
British Branch ” is under veto of the London Council. 
But apart from the question of the Edinburgh Council, I 
would ask, is it advancing the interest and raising the standard 
of the pharmacist to put up special pharmaceutical prepara¬ 
tions and push their sale amongst grocers, hucksters, etc., en¬ 
abling them to undersell the legitimate vender, or to reduce 
the prices for dispensing to such a low scale that it is really 
a wonder that a Pharmaceutical Chemist exists in the west of 
Scotland at all ? Some of the most prominent members of 
this Council do this, belonging both to Edinburgh and 
Glasgow, and I can only say shame to them and their boasted 
position of leaders of the Pharmaceutical Society of North 
Britain. 
October 10 th, 1871. M. P. S. 
Tincture Presses. « 
Sir,—I fear Mr. Staples has misconstrued my letter upon 
tincture presses, published in your issue of October 7th, 1871. 
I there intended to show that the power of the one-gallon 
tincture press, “ as ordinarily met with in trade,” was not 
20 tons, as represented by him in his paper read before the 
Pharmaceutical Conference, but theoretically only 4f tons; 
and when the deduction was made for friction about 2 tons. 
Upon the press designed by Mr. Staples I did not com¬ 
ment. 
It seems that Mr. Staples’ calculations were based upon 
data (as far as dimensions were concerned) the accuracy of 
which he had not previously ascertained, whereas my cal¬ 
culations were framed from actual observation in the drug¬ 
gists’ sundriesmen’s warehouses in this city. The only other 
difference influencing the computation was the force applied 
at the extremity of the lever. 
I imagine that although your readers (myself included) 
look upon Mohr and Redwood’s ‘Pharmacy’ as a stan¬ 
dard work upon all that is practical in connection with 
our calling, still they would not take everything as there 
stated (and especially when upon a subject that more pro¬ 
perly belongs to the engineer) as an indisputable fact. My 
authority was Professor Rankine, whose writings are consi¬ 
dered by practical engineers as standard works. 
Mr. Staples. I have no doubt, read in your last issue a 
letter from the eminent hydraulic engineers, Messrs. Hay¬ 
ward Tyler and Co. In introducing their combined screw 
and hydraulic press, they compute a man’s power at the 
