May 11, 1872.] 
919 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
an idea was far from the thoughts of the composer at the 
time it was written; and further, I do not believe that any 
member of the Society could take any such meaning from it. 
This cry, got up by Messrs. Smith and Company, resembles 
very much drowning men catching at straws. ‘ Fair Play ’ 
complains that there are not sufficient London men on the 
Council. But whose fault is it ? Certainly London chemists 
themselves: they have nominated the halt of the candidates 
standing, whereas if they had united upon the half of that 
Dumber they might easily return them all, and I am certain 
the provinces would not object. He also puts forth the 
claims of several gentlemen, while condemning the action of 
the Defence Committees. Mr. Savory we know by name, and 
Mr. Carr we know to our cost; but, as a provincial member, 
I have to ask who are Burden, Malden, Stacey, and Starkie ? 
If would-be candidates do not think it their duty to let their 
■opinions be known, they do not deserve the support of the 
members. J. M. Fairlie. 
Sir,—I have read with much interest Mr. Urwick’s letter 
in yours of the 20th inst., and think that it would be wise if 
all the gentlemen nominated would express their opinions in 
the straightforward manner he has done. 
With regard to the compulsory regulations, I fane}’- there 
is a very great chance that this question will eventually die 
•out, and that there will be no need for the Government to 
make compulsory regulations which to the majority of the 
profession will be always looked on as obnoxious. 
The returns of the Examining Board show that only men 
properly qualified are now admitted into our ranks, and all 
•danger of negligence is to a certain extent avoided. 
But it is not so much to this point I wish to draw the 
attention of your readers, as to the latter portion of Mr. 
Urwick’s letter, and I hope the Council may be prevailed on 
to place all on an equal footing, for as he remarks, the dif¬ 
ference in the public mind is very slight, and it is compara¬ 
tively few whojinow the distinction between member of the 
the Pharmaceutical Society, pharmaceutical chemist, and 
chemist and druggist, by examination. 
It is to my way of thinking only right that the men who 
have passed the Board of Examiners should have a different 
title to those who only acquired it by having been in business 
before a certain date. 
I trust should Mr. Urwick be successful in obtaining a seat 
at the Council Board, he will bring forward this important 
•question. 
April 2§th,\%72. Chemist and Druggist. 
Provincial Education. 
Sir,—I do not hold the narrow views imputed to me in 
your leader of May 4th, nor will anything I have written 
fairly warrant such a conclusion. The recent action of the 
<Couneil has strongly justified the opinions expressed in my 
short letter on Provincial Education, page 33S, Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Journal. 
In claiming grants for provincial education, we believe we 
are in strict accord with the original intentions of the 
founders of the Society; men whose aim and object was to 
elevate and benefit the whole body of chemists and druggists. 
Thirty years ago, 1843, the Council in their annual report, 
“assured the country members that the establishment of pro¬ 
vincial schools, and the extension of means for facilitating 
education throughout the country, locally, has by no means 
■been lost sight of,” and the same report further says, “It is 
evident that the provincial schools of pharmacy must be as¬ 
sisted, in the first instance at all events, with grants of 
money.” In 1843 advances were made to branch schools to 
the amount of £221, and in the following year £90; unfor¬ 
tunately just at that time a change took place which resulted 
in a loss of income to the Society of about £3000 a year, 
and of course no more grants could be made. From this it 
will be seen we are simply going back to first principles. We 
ask no eleemosynary aid, nor have we any nefarious designs 
on the funds of the Society. 
Referring to the report in the Journal, it is evident the 
Council are now alive to the importance of this question. 
Some of the speeches were not only just, but generous. I do 
hope, however, there will be no undue haste in this matter; 
what is needed is not merely money, but a well-digested and 
comprehensive scheme likely to secure the best results, and 
to give stability to local efforts by affiliating the associations 
as branch schools with the Parent Society. 
We have not asked for a grant in Hull, although we have 
established lectures, classes, etc., at considerable cost, to which 
all assistants and apprentices in the trade have access on 
\ equal terms. Our botanical lectures opened last week at the 
Botanic Gardens, with a class of 21 present, of whom 18 
were assistants and apprentices. 
I regret that Hull, like all other towns, has so small a pro¬ 
portion of members of the Society, viz.: 19 out of 90 in busi¬ 
ness ; we do not, however, forget the benevolent fund, to which 
we have 37 subscribers. 
It is gratifying in one respect to know that the school of 
pharmacy in Bloomsbury Square derives its chief support 
from country students. 
Hull, May 7th, 1872. James Baynes. 
[*** Mr. Baynes is mistaken in supposing that we regard 
the view put forward in the letter he refers to as being a nar¬ 
row one. On the contrary, our objection to the argument 
, he and others have based on the fact that country members 
have contributed largely to the educational establishment 
in Bloomsbury Square, is that it is illogical, inasmuch as it 
is not country members who now require the aid of the 
Society, but for the most part others who have never contri¬ 
buted to its funds. We fully concur with Mr. Baynes in his 
estimate of the original intentions of the founders of the 
Society; but we must also remind him that they distinctly 
pointed out that it was only by the joint assistance of the 
whole body that the foundation could be laid for systematic 
education. However, we cordially agree with him in hoping 
for the speedy organization of some comprehensive educational 
scheme, that will be for the general good of the trade, in ac¬ 
cordance with the Society’s original aim and intention.— 
Ed. Ph. J.] 
Benevolent Fund. 
Sir,—The Pharmaceutical Society, and more especially its 
unfortunate members, are much indebted to the late Mr. 
Orridge for the vitality now manifested in the working of the 
Benevolent Fund, which, for many years from its commence¬ 
ment, was little better than an abortion; but, however much 
the present is an improvement upon the past, Mr. Scholefield 
has shown in your issue of a fortnight ago, that there is yet 
great room for improvement. As local secretary, I have 
made many applications on behalf of the fund, and have 
frequently met with refusals on the ground that misfortunes 
near at hand, and calling for immediate relief, had much 
stronger claims than a fund from which the unfortunate of 
the present generation could derive so little benefit, compared 
to the sacrifices made by the subscribers, who are in many 
cases at least, as far removed from affluence as they are from 
indigence. I have constantly felt that such objections were 
both natural and forcible, and that I could not reasonably 
urge a donation. I cannot see any grounds upon which 
pharmacists of the present day should be expected to tax 
themselves for the relief of necessitous members of their 
calling in future generations. The present race have had to 
struggle against inordinate competition and other difficulties, 
from which the coming generation will be saved by the ope¬ 
ration of recent legislation. I see no reason to doubt that the 
pharmacists of twenty years hence will be a better remu¬ 
nerated class; they will include fewer poor, and a greater 
number of well-to-do members. There will be fewer demands 
upon their charity, and greater ability to meet those demands. 
Why then should we be taxed to relieve them of the respon¬ 
sibility, or, perhaps I should say, to deprive them of the 
pleasure which the prosperous tradesmen must always feel in 
mitigating the suffering caused by such misfortunes as were 
not provided against, because they could not be foreseen ? 
Our present bye-laws require that all donations shall be 
invested, and not applied to current requirements, but I see 
no reason why the whole of the annual subscriptions, as well 
as the interest upon funded capital, should not be applied to 
the alleviation of present necessities. 
“ Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.” 
I trust that some member of the incoming Council will 
make this subject his hobby, and ride it home, and that in the 
meantime some otifcr local secretaries will give us the benefit 
of their experience, and account for the small number of 
subscribers to be found in many a flourishing town. 
Barnard S. Proctor. 
11, Grey Street, Newcastle, 
April 30 th, 1872. 
