658 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[February 10, 1872. 
to keep to the matter in hand, and avoid those discursive I 
flights which serve only to confuse and mislead. 
In conclusion, I take this opportunity of suggesting what 
late experience has proved to be rather a pressing want, viz. i 
that classes be formed in all towns for elementary instruc¬ 
tion in the requirements of the poison clauses of the Phar- 
macy Act, and that coroners and country magistrates be 
admitted at reduced fees. 
Feb. 5th. “A Manchester Pharmacist.” 
Sir,—After reading Mr. Siebold’s lecture, I was quite pre¬ 
pared for any strong remarks that might subsequently be 
made thereon; unquestionably he has challenged the whole i 
pharmaceutic body,—a foolish thing to do, as he appears inca- I 
pable ot accepting criticism in any other way than as a per¬ 
sonal affront towards himself. Mr. Keen has commented on 
the lecture severely, perhaps rather too much so; still, making 1 
allowance for a little extravagance in the use of adjectives,— 
caused, doubtless, by honest indignation,—it is on the whole 
thoroughly well deserved, aud it is a pity Mr. S. has so evi¬ 
dently allowed his wrathful feelings to overcome him in his 
reply. TV ithout going so far as to say that “absurdities and 
inaccuracies abound,” still we are told to accept, on this sole 
authority, such startling statements as facts,—statements 
that are so contrary to common sense, to the experience of 
our daily lives, and to the ideas that years and the wisdom of 
others have engrafted on our minds, that it is not inexcusable 
to style them as absurd. One example of these is quoted in 
Mr. Keen’s letter, others are to be found throughout the 
lecture. 
In reply to Mr. Keen, Mr. Siebold says that he recommends 
the B. P. to students as a text-book on subjects of practical 
pharmacy, so he does the prescription-book, and “ his own 
practical knowledge,” but the recommendation is given so 
superficially as to be almost worthless. 
The introductory remarks as to general study and the ac¬ 
quirement of a knowledge of chemistry and materia medica, 
are such as will commend themselves to thoughtful and prac¬ 
tical men, but following these is an assertion by no means 
flattering to the medical profession, for we find “that but for 
our knowledge and care in detecting doses of poisons, hundreds 
of human lives would be sacrificed every year by the errors 
ot medical men s prescriptions.” Probably this sensational 
statement is one of those that called forth Mr. Keen’s denun¬ 
ciation as “inaccurate and absurd.” 
With regard to botany, as a subject for pharmaceutical 
students, I think it is worthy of much more regard than Mr. 
S. is disposed to accord it; he places it in the same category 
as astronomy, anatomy, etc., interesting, instructive and cul¬ 
tivating to the mind; these sciences, however, have no bear¬ 
ing? near or remote, on those branches of knowledge we must 
acquire in order to become skilful pharmacists. Botany has 
a very close connection with our pursuits, most of our reme¬ 
dies being obtained from the vegetable kingdom, and as we 
are expected to be w’ell acquainted with the nature and pro¬ 
perties ot such as are derived from the inorganic, surely it is 
not too much to expect that we should be possessed of a little 
more than routine knowledge of those from the vegetable 
world; that we should know something about their growth, 
structure, anatomy and classification, something of the ar¬ 
rangements and distinctions of such of the Natural Orders as 
come more immediately under our notice. I do not say that 
an intimate knowledge of systematic and structural botany is 
essential, but I do say that a sound general knowledge of it is 
a great advantage to a practical pharmacist. If we come to 
bare essentials only, then what necessity is there for chemistry 
and materia medica ? Many businesses have been, and are 
now carried on successfully without a knowledge of those im¬ 
portant items; still, he wiio is well up in them, or in other 
words, he who has a large amount of useful information bear¬ 
ing on that profession by which he hopes to live, stands a 
better chance of succeeding than he who has very little or 
none. I, for one, would regret exceedingly, if the standard 
ot our education were to be lowered by removing from the 
examination all subjects but those barely essential to carry¬ 
ing on business, by such a proceeding we should be com¬ 
pletely stultifying ourselves. Prom the foundation of the So¬ 
ciety has not the cry been “ excelsior ” ? and shall we now 
fall back into the ranks of mediocrity ? I trust not. If such 
is to be the standard of fitness, what is the use of the Minor 
examination ? Better abolish it altogether and substitute the 
Modified, which seems to be the beau ideal of Mr. Siebold’s 
fancy, for assuredly that includes nothing but bare essen¬ 
tials. 
The innuendoes against the ability and fairness of the exa¬ 
miners come with a bad grace from one professing to be a 
teacher of pharmacy, and they are calculated to give one 
the idea that Mr. Keen is very near the truth in his sug¬ 
gestion as to the better preparation of the London students 
than those from Manchester. The statement, that “ not 
unfrequently able and thoroughly qualified men fail, and 
that others, though quite incompetent, succeed ” is, to say 
the least, very reckless; and I have no hesitation in saying, 
it is entirely unsupported by facts. As regards pharmacy, 
this examination, we are told, “ deserves to be called worse 
than useless.” This opinion, I think, can hardly extend 
beyond those “able and thoroughly qualified men” who so 
frequently fail in passing; in my opinion it is a useful test 
as to a man’s practical knowledge of his business; and if he 
is unable to distinguish most of the galenicals of the B. P., 
and show that he is familiar with the constitution of its most 
ordinary compounds, 1, for one, should be inclined to think 
he did not know very much of his business. Is there so 
little difference between extracts of henbane, hemlock, opium, 
aloes, cannabis indica, etc., or, tinctures of opium, myrrh, 
rhubarb, lavender, etc., that the sense of smell is the only one' 
brought to bear on their distinctions ? What estimate should 
I form of the abilities of an assistant who had to turn to the 
Pharmacopoeia every time lin. opii, lin.' ammon., pil. coloe. 
c. hyoscyam., dec. cinchon., and similar preparations ap¬ 
peared in a prescription; or who, in case of morphia, strychnia, 
gum acacia or sugar being ordered in a mixture, could not 
use the proper quantity of their solutions ? Surely a man 
ought to be well up in the nature and composition of those 
things amongst which he is engaged in making and using, 
day after day and year after year. I have no hesitation in 
saying, that an apprentice who has spent five years in an 
average dispensing establishment, should be able to pass this- 
section of the examination any time after his indentures are- 
out, or I should say he had wasted his opportunities. I can¬ 
not think that “ the inability to recognize tinctures and ex¬ 
tracts,” which is so great a grievance to the teacher, “ has 
proved fatal to many a student,” it is some other inability, or 
combination of them, that has stood between him and suc¬ 
cess ; for, if he was “ provided with more than ample know¬ 
ledge of chemistry and materia medica,” it is not alone ina¬ 
bility to recognize a few pharmaceutical preparations that 
has put him back, the cause must be sought a little further. 
Who does Mr. S. mean when he says, “ What we w r ant, 
and what we have a right to demand, is,” etc.; and to whom 
are the botanical and pharmacy examinations “ an intolerable 
burden ” ? Is he speaking in the name, and expressing the 
opinion of the pharmacists generally, or only those of the 
“ Manchester school ” ? If the former, it is presumption on. 
his part; if he is the mouthpiece of the latter, all well and 
good. 
There remains yet the dispensing section, with which Mr. 
S. is not pleased, and gives it as his opinion that “ an ex¬ 
aminer cannot possibly judge of a dispenser’s abilities by 
seeing him prepare a single prescription.” I believe this 
examination to be useful, because I honestly think the ex¬ 
aminer can form a tolerably exact opinion of the candidate’s 
dispensing abilities by seeing him prepare even a single pre¬ 
scription ; he can see how lie goes about his work, how he 
handles his tools, and in what order he mixes his things, 
quite sufficient to perceive whether the candidate is an expe¬ 
rienced hand or only a bungler. Then, again, in the read¬ 
ing of prescription directions; what is the use of examining a 
student on the most ordinary and simple example alone ? You 
want to find out whether his knowledge is but routine, or 
something beyond that; if he is thoroughly conversant with 
his subject, or if he will break down directly he gets out of 
the depths of simplicity, and if his stock of knowledge will 
enable him to assign a correct meaning to an obscure word 
or phrase. 
I feel assured that Mr. S. will not, at least in the opinion 
of the majority, have “succeeded in pointing out the main 
causes which lead to the failure of many well-qualified men,”' 
far from it; if assertions resting solely on his ipse dixit are 
proofs, then we have them in abundance, not otherwise; 
neither has he satisfactorily shown a “ necessity for a thorough 
reform in the present system of examinations.” 
In conclusion, it is gratifying to find that all the hearers of 
this lecture were not of the same mind as the lecturer. 
