March 30, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
7S1 
APPRENTICESHIP. 
BY S. B. ATKINS. 
I trust no apology is needed in again asking the 
members of the pharmaceutical body to give the 
question of apprenticeship their serious considera¬ 
tion. 
So long as cases occur similar to that of ‘ Horner 
v. Pybus,’ reported in page 695 of the Journal, so 
long are evils tolerated by us, working out results 
directly and indirectly most fatal to our progress. 
The legalized defences erected around us, partly 
the result of our own seeking, and partly the result 
of public opinion, involve us in the higher moral 
law of privilege and responsibility—a law of uni¬ 
versal application. 
Our Society now has delegated to it by the Legis¬ 
lature, that is, by the nation, considerable powers 
touching the pharmacy of the country, and we can¬ 
not, if we would, shirk the stewardship we have 
sought and secured. 
It is an undoubted fact that many of our appren¬ 
tices are not equitably treated in this matter. A 
threefold barrier—or at any rate a twofold—in the 
form of examinations, has to be surmounted by the 
aspirant for pharmaceutical honours before he passes 
within the circle of privilege. He shares the maxi¬ 
mum of responsibility, actually and prospectively, 
and in many cases only the minimum of present 
privilege in the shape of educational advantages. 
There are ample grounds for asserting that che¬ 
mists’ apprentices are occupying, and it is to be 
feared will, for some time to come, occupy the least 
favoured position in our ranks. 
Many men cannot educate their apprentices, 
while others will not, or at least do not. This is an 
evil existing in connection with pharmacy in Great 
Britain which can only be removed by creating a 
healthier sentiment through our own special litera¬ 
ture. We hardly dare state the estimate which com¬ 
petent persons in different parts of the kingdom 
have formed as to the number of chemists who have 
accepted the responsibility of teaching, and are doing 
nothing of the kind. 
The assertion that such apprentices occupy the 
least favoured position in our ranks is susceptible of 
the clearest and fullest demonstration. 
Accepting the threefold division in its natural 
order,—Men in business, assistants, apprentices. 
(a.) Of the first of these three this much may be 
said, the Pharmacy Act necessarily was called on to 
respect vested interests; whatever their defects, men 
in business were whitewashed. Evidently they have 
no ground of complaint; a better act of indemnity 
could not have been procured. 
(b.) Assistants have much to complain of. Large 
numbers entered the trade’ when the higher culture 
demanded to-day was only indefinitely looming in 
the distant future. Their position seems to be this; 
they find themselves imperfectly trained in phar¬ 
macy and chemistry, and the path of life blocked by 
the examination ordeal ere they can enter the com¬ 
munity of business men. 
Per contra , however, this much is in their favour, 
the world lies before them. We do not mean the 
world outside the domain of pharmacy. Many young 
men are quitting us rather than confront the exa¬ 
miner; such a course if not a matter for surprise 
must be for regret. Is it for an instant to be 
imagined that the realm of pharmacy does not offer 
Third Series, No. 92. 
them all they want, only assuming they are willing 
to study ? If one house of business denies them the 
requisite time and opportunity, other houses, willing 
to do so, are to be found. 
(c.) With an apprentice the case is- altogether 
different. For a term of years his position is fixed, 
and during its continuance, nolens volens, must be 
endured, unless the connection be severed by an 
illegal act, as in the case of ‘ Horner v. Pybus.’ 
The pertinent inquiry here suggests itself, What 
are the respective obligations mutually of master 
and pupil? A clear and definite statement of re¬ 
ciprocal duty must be made. We take it for granted 
that the Preliminary examination, or its equivalent, 
las been passed; to argue that such should be the 
case before the relation of teacher and student has 
commenced, assuredly must now be superfluous. 
The master has a right to claim the honest, 
faithful discharge of duty from his apprentice. 
Granted. But what .are the duties of an appren¬ 
tice ? In reply, it must be admitted, circumstances 
and localities will give a different complexion to 
those duties. It may be that sometimes the hum¬ 
bler work of “ sweeping out,” “ shutting up,” wash¬ 
ing mortars and measures, running on errands in the 
occasional absence of the porter or errand-boy, may 
be fairly asked of the apprentice; and the youth 
who cannot let “ such vile things come betwixt the 
the wind and his nobility” is not worth his salt. 
Not hesitating, on a push, to do such things them¬ 
selves, no hardship would be inflicted by employers 
asking their pupils to do the same ; and where just, 
honourable and kindly relations have been esta¬ 
blished, it will be so regarded. But will the most 
elastic interpretation of the covenant of indenture 
justify any man in immuring his apprentice three 
days out of six in a cellar four feet by ten, working 
by gaslight, grinding soda for a patent lubricating 
grease? On other days going from home to hold a 
vessel for hours “to catch condensed water,” occa¬ 
sionally varied by dragging a hand-cart through the 
streets, or carrying out soda-water? Evidently a 
mistake has been made in a word: for apprentice, 
read drudge. This doubtless will be pronounced an 
extreme case, and, for the credit of pharmacy, we 
are thankful to believe it is,—but extreme in degree 
rather than in kind. 
What are the just claims of a pharmaceutical ap¬ 
prentice ? A comfortable home, gentlemanly treat¬ 
ment and sufficient technical training to enable 
him to pass the “ Minor.” That these claims are 
met, and even more than met, in a large number of 
instances, must be cheerfully conceded ; but who 
can tell the number of cases precisely the converse ? 
To what extent thoughtful, cultured men are declin¬ 
ing the responsibilities of training, can only be ap¬ 
proximately guessed,—personal observation on such 
a point, being necessarily limited, it forms but a par¬ 
tial datum on which to build an opinion. But in¬ 
formation furnished from twelve centres in the most 
widely separated parts of England may be thus 
epitomized : “ instruction furnished to apprentices 
lamentably deficient both in quality and quantity. 
Let it not be said that such evidence is ex parte ; 
that much, after all, depends on the. “ self-help our 
young men put forth ; that no generosity on the side 
of employers, no appliances furnished by institutions, 
can take the place of individual exertion. All this 
is admitted, and though it does not come within the 
scope of this paper to read homilies to our young men, 
