February 10,1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
659 
Whether Mr. Siebold is an examined pharmacist or not, I 
have not the means of ascertaining at present. I hope not, 
for neither as a pharmaceutical chemist, nor as a teacher of 
pharmacy, is he by these sentiments advancing the interests 
of the profession. 
T. H. Hustwick. 
Liverpool, Feb. 5th, 1872. 
Sir,—Having read the letter of Mr. Keen, published by 
you last week, I feel compelled to ask for a portion of your 
space to reply to his criticism of the lecture delivered by Mr. 
Siebold. 
Mr. Keen writes, “ I am sorry it (the lecture) has been 
thought worthy to be reported in extenso.” I, on the con¬ 
trary, am glad it was so reported, for now, if it abounds with 
absurdities and inaccuracies, they may be proved as such, and 
our young men cannot be misguided by anything that Mr. S. 
may choose to say. 
The comparison drawn by Mr. K. between Dr. Attfield 
and Mr. Siebold is not worth much. I am acquainted with 
both gentlemen, esteem them highly, and, having received 
instruction from them, I have great pleasure in acknow¬ 
ledging my obligations to them. I doubt whether Mr. Keen 
knows anything of Mr. S. further than his lecture. Taking 
this into consideration, I feel that I am able to crush the in¬ 
tended blow at Manchester candidates and one of their 
teachers. 
Mr. Siebold made his remarks, not because of the failings 
of his own students, but from the results printed month by 
month in the Journal. Mr. K. must not forget that there 
are manv candidates that do not come either from London or 
Manchester. Prom what I know of Mr. S.’s students, they 
have been very fairly successful; of course, he has had the 
misfortune to have a man rejected sometimes, but I will dare 
to say it was the student’s, and not Mr. S.’s, fault. Has not 
Dr. Attfield had a few unsuccessful candidates ? Yes. How¬ 
ever hard a teacher may work with some men, they either 
cannot or will not learn. I think Mr. K. would find our city 
would have as good an average of successful students as 
London if he compared the results. 
He complains of the method Mr. S. gave, to students in 
business, for obtaining their knowledge. Mr. S. advocates 
the study of each subject to be carried on together. Mr. K. 
says such a system must end in confusion of thought, and 
failure. That might be the result if the student only read 
by “ snatches,” but that Mr. S. did not recommend. I think 
the subjects are so linked one with another as to make it im¬ 
possible to master them without being studied together. I 
do not know a teacher who recommends otherwise. Take, 
for example, our School of Pharmacy, Bloomsbury Square. 
You will find that lectures are given there on each subject 
during the week. Does Mr. K. think it best for a student to 
enter a course upon chemistry one session, materia medica 
the next, and so on ? I am sure he cannot think that; 
therefore, if students at Bloomsbury Square study the sub¬ 
jects simultaneously, why should not those who are unable 
to attend adopt the same course ? A great portion of the 
candidates are unable to attend a session, having to work and 
study together. If a young man can have, as Mr. S. said, 
two hours a day of real study, he may do very well. 
Mr. K. next refers to botany. I think he might have 
found a better example than Pol. Buchu as a plea why botany 
should be one of the subjects of examination. My answer to 
his question is, that if he will refer to his ‘ Bentley,’ he will not 
find that Pol. Buchu are said to have ££ pellucid dots ” or in¬ 
dentations. Bentley says they are “dotted,” but to learn 
about the kind of dots, and the indentations of the margin, 
a work on materia medica must be resorted to. This example, 
then, does not prove the necessity of botany. My opinion 
about the use of botany is, that for the ££ Minor ” it is need¬ 
less, as that examination ought not to exclude any one fit 
for the duties of a “ chemist and druggistfor the “ Major ” 
examination, its structural branches, and the diagnoses of 
the principal medicinal Natural Orders, ought to be fairly 
understood. 
With regard to practical pharmacy, I differ from Mr. 
Siebold, but would not say his remarks “ are so absurd as to 
be almost beneath one’s notice.” Mr. K. would do well 
to write with a little better feeling, if he wishes his letter to 
have weight with our body of chemists. 
Mr. S. has ground for some things he says on the subject, 
but I think not for all. 
I agree with him about the recognition of extracts being 
impossible, with an exception or two. He is too strong when 
he says, “ The examiners require the candidates to know by 
heart the component parts of compound powders, mixtures,” 
etc. I think the examiners on this subject will be well satis¬ 
fied if the important ingredients are known. For instance, 
Pulv. Kino Co.: if the candidate remembered that it con¬ 
tained opium in addition to kino, I think the examiner would 
excuse his failing to remember the cinnamon, knowing that 
candidates are more or less nervous. 
As to the recognition of tinctures, I was only shown those 
that could be recognized, either by sight or smell, by any one 
whose right place was in the examination room. 
It is a matter of great importance to know the active in¬ 
gredients of compound preparations, and the proportion of 
poisonous constituents. If a man does not know this, how is 
he likely to detect errors in surgeons’ prescriptions ? It is 
not likely that a person will remember all the exact B. P. doses 
of compound preparations, so that it is imperative that this 
subject should not be trifled with. If an apprentice is trained 
well, he will not need to “ cram ” for his examination in 
practical pharmacy. Mr. Keen very gravely doubts the as¬ 
sertion made by Mr. S., “ that able and well-qualified men 
fail, and that others quite incompetent succeed.” He con¬ 
siders it almost impossible with the machinery in force at 
Bloomsbury Square. He does well to say ££ almost,” for I 
think I could mention one, if not more, of each kind. His 
personal experience not being of the smallest, led me to seek 
some information about it. I find that last month he passed 
the Major, so I presume he is giving his evidence of what he 
saw on that occasion. I agree with him that, as a rule, the 
examiners are courteous and gentlemanly, though I think it 
has not been his lot to be called in for examination about 
3 o’clock, when the examiners are getting tired, and some of 
them rather short-tempered. I think there is room for a 
little improvement. The examiners should not, because they 
have had one or two dull candidates, have their earlier courteous 
manners ruffled. I have heard a few complaints from both 
the successful and unsuccessful. The method of examination is 
the most important topic, and requhes great care as to what 
is said upon it. I have not the slightest ill-feeling against 
the examiners, so, if I say anything that seems as though I 
had, I wish it to be understood that my motive in saying it is 
for the benefit of future candidates. The manner in which 
the subject is questioned upon has a great deal to do with 
the success of the candidate. Questions should be given in 
such a manner as to admit of one answer only. My expe¬ 
rience is, that questions are given that admit of more than 
one answer, the candidate not knowing how to interpret them. 
He answers according to his judgment; he is not told whe¬ 
ther rightly or wrongly, and possibly does not give the answer 
expected. I think the candidate ought to know whether he 
gives a right answer, for sometimes he might correct a pure 
mistake. When questions are given admitting of more than 
one answer, the examiner ought to be able to tell if he gets 
any of the possible answers. To be able to do this efficiently 
requires men who devote their time to the special study of 
that subject. I w r ould therefore plead for examiners, profes¬ 
sors of chemistry, materia medica and botany, and good prac¬ 
tical pharmaceutical chemists for pharmacy and dispensing. 
I cannot see that men having businesses to attend to can act 
efficiently as examiners in the scientific subjects. This is not 
entirely my own thought; it was first brought under my no¬ 
tice, when in London, by a gentleman wLose authority in 
such matters is looked upon by our body as worth something. 
I think it would be a preventive against the success of a 
crammed man, and be better for the real student. 
In conclusion, I earnestly call some of our esteemed and 
well-qualified gentlemen to give their opinions on this very 
important subject. My apology for the length of the letter 
is the great difficulty of condensation. 
Joseph Wh. Gill. 
Fendleton, January 31s£, 1872. 
Sir,—Mr. Agnew’s letter in last week’s Journal is one which 
cannot be overlooked and passed by without comment by any 
one who is interested in the subject of pharmaceutical educa¬ 
tion. I am at a loss, I must confess, to understand his exact 
meaning, and I wmuld ask him if he is prescribing a course of 
knowledge necessary for the faithful discharge of the duties of 
a pharmaceutical chemist, or if he is drawing a synopsis of an 
