A Respectable Occupation: - University of Hertfordshire Research ...

certain amount of anecdotal evidence available. Most of this arose at the
time when the National Insurance Act (1911) was being discussed and the
Pharmaceutical Society was being pressed to admit apothecaries‘ assistants
to membership without examination. Some of this evidence is provided by
informal organisations of chemists and druggists and by apothecaries‘
assistants. In a letter to the Pharmaceutical Society, in 1909, 11 members
of the National Union of Assistant Pharmacists claimed that the
apothecaries‘ assistant‘s qualification was inferior. This Union represented
those who were qualified as chemists and druggists or pharmaceutical
chemists, but who did not own their own businesses and consequently saw
their future threatened by the apothecaries‘ assistants. The basis for their
claim was fourfold. The apothecaries‘ assistants were permitted to take the
examination at the age of 18 years. Therefore the amount of practical
training they had received had to be limited compared to that of the chemist
and druggist who was examined at 21 years of age. The period of training
required by the apothecaries‘ assistants was six months, compared to the
three years required by the chemist and druggist. The assistants were not
required to sit a preliminary examination and so their educational standard
must be considered to be below that required in a professional. They
believed that the knowledge required by the assistant‘s syllabus was about
one quarter of that required for the ‗minor‘ examination. 206
On 3 May 1919, Mr A. Auger, a member of the Pharmaceutical
Society from Chorlton cum Hardy, wrote to the Pharmaceutical Journal,
206 Society of Apothecaries Archive, Box 10, E/4/4/1/2, Letter from 11 Members of the National Union of
Assistant Pharmacists to Pharmaceutical Journal, 11 Jul. 1909.
143