INS'I'ITUTE OF CHEMISTRY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. REPORT OF A CONFERENCE ON THE ETHICS OF PROFESSIONAL CHEMISTRY, Eeld Wedmsday, December 8th, 1881. $IYnban : PRINTED BY A. P. BLUNDELL & CO.,26, GARLICK HILL, E.C. I_ 1882. FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION. INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY. A7 PAPER ON CERTAINPOINTSIN THE ETHICSOF PROFESSIONALCHEMISTRY, READ BY PROFESSOR E. FRANKLAND AT TEE CONFERENCE Held Tedrtesdiy, December 8tJ2, 1881. IN asking me to introduce the subjects of this Conference as defined by the Conference Committee, I presume your Council considers it desirable that this duty should be undertaken by some one as ignorant as possible of the opinions and practice of chemists in reference to the matters now to be discussed ; at all events this is the condition in which I come before you on the present occasion, for my experience in any of the six subjectg enumerated has been exceedingly slight, and, such as it was, it occurred long ago, when our profession was very differenb from what it is in its present developed condition.I have always considered that those persons are best worth listening to who thoroughly under- stand the aubject they talk about, and although there may, on rare occasions, be some advantage in hearing the opinions of so- 4 called outsiders on account of their presumed impartiality, I think this is more than compensated by the chance of failure in seizing tlie real points of interest and importance. Without further preface, however, I will proceed to cousider briefly the points to be discassed.1. Shozskd chemists take samples for ana7ys.i~personrclly ? It has always appeared to me that, iu most cases, the tsliing of samples for analysis is of at least as much importance, and requires almost as much intelligence, as the performance of the analyses themselves. Commercial articles requiring analysis are rarely honiogeneous, and UI~I~SSdue proportions of the hetero- gerieous parts be mixed, the analysis of the sample must be misleading. With the best intentions as regards fairness? persons ignorant of the requiremeuts of scientific exactness may, and I believe frequently do, take improper samples. Again, if the article to be examined be a merchantable one, and the seller takes the sample, it can scarcely be expected that he will not select as fayourable a specimen as possible ; whilst on the other hand, if the buyer samples, an inferior specimen is likely to be sent for analysis.The analyst ought to consider how easily the character of his profession may be thus imperilled, and he ought, therefore, to guard himself, by every means in his power, against being made the tool of interested parties ; and one of the best means of doing this is, in my opinion, to take samples himself, whenever prac- ticable. Of course I am aware that the observance of such a rule is often difficult, or practically impossible, and I am, there-fore? far from recommending that chemists should decline to undertake the analysis of any samples they have not themselves collected; but I do desire to express my dissent frotn the pro- position, ‘‘ That it is uizdesirable that chemists should take samples personally.” When, however, both parties to a bargain agree upon a sample, the chemist is relieved of all responsibility in the matter.2. Should fhe conditions of analysis, and the method eniployed, be stnted in the report, where there are di$erent processes in use known to gh~edzfeerent results ? 5 In reporting, the chief o5ject of the analyst ought, I conceive, to be to make known to his employer, and frequently to others as well, the truth about the thing investigated. If, therefore, the conditions under which the analysis was made are such as to rpquire a knowledge of them in order that the analytical numbers may be appraised at their true value, then those conditions ought to be described in the report.Still more ought the method of analysis to be clearly stated if there are several processes in me known to give different results, provided always that the analytical data do not, in themselves, clearly reveal to experts the particular method employed. 3. Under w?mt circwnstunces are nizalystsjust$ied in employing a commercial method prescribed by a client, even when it is knozotz to give i?zaccurnteresults ? In reply to this question, T think it is quite legitimate for an analyst to employ any method prescribed for him-howerer inaccurate it may be-provided that he gives his client fair warning that the results are not trustworthy, and stipulates that no use shall be made of them unless accornp,anicd by the analyst's statement that he considers them inaccurate.Rut whilst such work would, under these conditions, be justifiable, the circum- stances must be very rare indeed under which a chemist woiild willingly undertake it. He ought, moreover, to be very careful that there is no sinister intention of making other than a legiti- mate and straightforn-ard use of his results. 4. The employment of a way of stating results zchi2h is mis-leading. On this point I should not' have imagined that there could be two opinions, although it is of course possible that there may be two practices. I can only conceive of the employment of a mis-leading may of recording results being in some degree justifiable when the recorder is ignoraut that his statement is misleading.The statement of all analytical results ought to be as clear and precise as possible and in order that they may be so, the best known methods of analysis ought to be employed, even if they involve much more labour. The cases involving misleading G statements with which I have become acquainted have alniost invariably resulted from the employment of imperfect methods by the analyst, followed by his guesses at data which he ought to have ascertained by careful experiment. The losses in these cases have generally fallen upon the client, who thenceforward retains a very undesirable opinion of the capacity of chemists in generaI.5. Whether the custom of buying or selling &y sample as analysad by some analyst named in the contract should be countenanced ? There may be evils or disadvantages connected with this practice which are unknown to me ; but, so far as my knowledge extends, I cannot discover any tangible objection to it. Moreover, if the proceeding were deemed undesirable, I do not see how it could be effectively discountenanced. 6. Tho question of rt?ferencein casos of discrepmacies. This appears to me to be a, very difficult question to answer in a definite manner. In most cases, I should think that the two chemists onght to confer together before recourse is had to a referee, and for this reason I should be inclined to deprecate the appointment of a referee beforehand.It would, in my opinion, be far better that both parties should agree upon an analyst, whose report mould then be more likely to be impartial than a result arrived at by the cumbrons and expensive process of em-ploying two analysts and a referee. Moreover, the settlement arrived at by the three would probably never be so satisfactory to either party as the verdict of a trustworthy man eniployed by both. THEPRESIDENT: The question having been raised in the Council of the Institute some little time since whether it might not be very useful to have a discussion amongst the Members of the Institute of several points relating to the practices of analytical and consultiiig chemists, in the pursuit of their profession, a committee was appointed to consider what subjects might be practically dealt with in this way.The Committee framed six questions which appeared to afford scope for very useful discussion, and to include a variety of topics of general interest to the pro- 7 f2ssion. The difficulty, however, was to determine how best to open a discussion on these subjects, and we naturally sought among our members one who, occupying an independent position, would be likely to bring before us the questions without bias, and to lead us to discuss them from various points of view. We thought our choice could not fall upon a better man than Dr. Frankland, and he kindly consented to deal with the subject.No doubt all of us have perused his Paper carefully, and what I would suggest to you is, that -ive should not now at once deal with the whole Paper, short as it is, but that me should take up seriatim the questions, with what Dr. Frankland has got to say upon each one, and discuss them in this way, 80 as to arrive in as brief a period as possible at some conclusions. THE SECRETARYthen read the first question, with Dr. Frankland's remarks thereupon. THE hmsrDENT having invited discussion, DR. VOELCKERsaid : Dr. Frankland thinks that if the seller takes the sample it can scarcely be expected but that he will select as favourable a specimen as possible ; while a similar remark will apply in the case of the buyer. What I mould ask is this: If two parties, one for the buyer and one for the seller, watch each other, is it not likely we shall obtain a fair sainpIe ? It is quite true that if we have to deal with a new commercial article of vhich we know but little, a chemist might be of some assistance in devising a proper plan of sanipling ; but in a recognised articIe of commerce a man accustomed to sampling might be up to the tricks of trade, and so sample better than a qualified chemist.On the whole, I am inclined to think that sampling might be left to those who are interested in the matter, and for whose interests the sampling is made, and the responsibility of the chemist should terminate in turning out accurate results. He should confine his attention to making the analysis, and should not undertake a special duty which he could not personally perform, but would have to leave to his assistant, nith the probability that this assistant m-ould not be so well up, in my opinion, as a man traiued to taking samples.8 REDWOODPROFESSOR said: I have not much to offer upon this subject. I agree generally with the remarks of Dr. Voelcker, and in addition would say that, in my opinion, there are two perfectly distinct classes of samples which chemists are called upon to analyse. These two classes call for distinct and different modes of collecting. In regard to com- mercial samples, I think what has been said by Dr. Voelcker directly applies, and that we are accustomed to look for the collection of such samples by persons interested both in behalf of the seller and buyer, and these persons, as far as my ex-perience goes, are accustomed to take fair and proper samples: the responsibility that rests on the analyst is to make a correct return of the real value of such samples.There are, however, many other cases where it devolves upon the analyst to take samples personally : this applies, for instance, to samples of water, where the fitness of such water for drinking purposes is in question. There are circumstances connected with the natural history of the water, its source, and the surroundings of this source, of which no person can form an adequate opinion so well as the analyst who is called upon to express an opinion on its salubrity. It appears to me, therefore, that under those two different classes of circumstances, the mode of proceeding should be distinct and different.MR. DAVIDHOWARD: I do not know that I can say much on the subject, excepting so far as my own experience is concerned. That experience is confined to well-known customs of trade, and may throw a certain amount of light upon this subject. There are two quite distinct points, as Professor Redwood has said. In certain cases a chemist is more of a consulting chemist than a referee ; and in such cases, if he can bring his skill to bear in taking a sample, it is desirable he should do so. The majority of commercial samples, however, are of two classes-those which are sampled by an independent person, and those sampled by the buyer and seller together, or OT by the seller only.A very large class of goods Thich come iuto the London prodlice market-known as (‘The Lane”-are sampled in the dock or rharf. It requires 9 years of experience, and very great skill and care, to sample properly ; so much so, that I invariably take, if possible, a sample by a skilled man. It is exceedingly tempting in sampling-especially if it is something you think you know a good deal about-to take a sample which strikes your eye. For this reason, I rarely take samples with my own hands. As a matter of fairness it is not desirable that a sample should be drawn by any one skilled in the special goods, so much as by one skilled in the art of sampling.If it were known that the sampling at any wharf or clock was not well performed, there wwld be a great objection to bny goods from that wharf or dock. In these cases it is most undesirable that a chemist should interfere, for he mould certainly not do the work as well as a man receiving wages not quite representative of the value of a chemist’s time. In the case of a seller’s samples, it is most undesirable that a chemist should have any responsibility: if the samples of buyer and seller do not agree, he cannot be blamed ; but if he had drawn the samples himself, the responsibility would be thrown on his hands. The ordinary custom where samples are not drawn at the wharf or dock is, that the buyer and seller, or their repre-sentatives, should agree to sample together. The analyst is thus perfectly free from responsibility, and if a mistake is made, it is not his.Of cours2 I am now speaking of the class of articles with which I am acquainted. If I am to analyse a sample, I would prefer it drawn by a man who has the specific knowledge of sampling, because I believe he will do it mechanically, and theref ore better. MR. MAXWELL LYTE: I think that sampling is as much a business to be learnt by a chemist as any other branch of his profession. He ought, at all events, to know how to sample. He ought not to be considered to be obliged to trust to a man in the docks to collect his samples. A chemist ought always to assist if he can, and if not, he should, if possible, employ some qualified agent to assist.It should not be a recognised thing that achemist does not kiiow how to sample. In the next place, I would s3y that the rsponsibility of the chemist map be too limited. Ti1 10 France this responsibility is very much greater than it is here. A chemist who makes an assay of gold or silver has the respon- sibility of that assay thrown upon him, and is legally liable both to the vendor and the purchaser-within the limits of allowable error4f any loss accrue from his assay ; and although it might happeE he was not proceeded against, still the responsibility is legally his, and he could be sued in a court of law. If there was more responsibility here attached to the chemist, 1believe it would tend to raise the standard of the profession, and his condition would be considerably improved.DR. PAUL:In addition to the remarks of previous speakers, with most of which I agree, I might say there are, no doubt, cases in which the identification of the samples by a chemist becomes a matter of importance-in poisoniiig cases, for instance ; or in cases of nuisance, and where it is necessary to give evidence in relation to sanitary matters, but in ordinary trade affairs the only point to be considered by the chemist is that his analysis should be accurate, and the statement of his results precise. When a sample is put into his hands, it is of very little .importance to him whether it represents the bulk of the article or not ; so long as his work is properly done, he is free from all responsibility on that score.The most satisfactory couditions under which samples are taken is where the buyer and seller agree upon the sample to be analysed ; and if in that case the bulk does not agree with tlie sample, it is the samplers who are to blame. An objection is put forward by Dr. Frankland that when a sample is supplied to the chemist by the seller, the latter is likely to take a favourable sample. I do not think that is tenable. A man who has to offer a material for sale on the basis of an analysis would naturally desire as correct a certificate as he could get. If he has sold according to sample, and certified goods as being of a certain value, he lays himself open to an action for damages, or to make good the difference in value, if the good3 turri out to be iuferior.A pei*son bnying, on the other lmnd, would take care to haw as correct a sirlnple RS possible. I believe what is con-sidered the most s:\tisf:tctory p?an is for buyer ;inti seller to hare 11 their respective representatives-generally, the better class of workmen, earning, say, 22 a week, and perfectly able to draw a satisfactory sample; in this way everything that the chemist requires is supplied. Another objection to the chemist interfering with sampling is that it is qnite impossible for him to give the time required for this work. It is sometimes necessary to go a distance-to Liverpool or Cornwall-and it would interfere greatly with his professional work if he were compelled to do this, besides involving him in responsibility that does not properly appertain to him as a professional man.MR. TYRER: I think the whole question of sampling is pretty well indicated in the concluding sentence of the third paragraph : -“ When, however, both parties to a bargain agree upon a sample, the chemist is relieved of a11 responsibility in the matter.” One cannot help thinking there may be circumstances in which the chemist may very natnrally be called in to decide where “ doctors differ,” particularly when a sample has been drawn from a part of the material different from that whence another sample has been taken. With regard to sampling at the docks, having had some slight experience in the matter, I am bound to say I must heartily agree with Mr.Howard as to the mechanical accuracy-may I call it?-of these samples. The chemist has not the technical knowledge necessary to do the work properly, and I have found that in comparing the samples which the men have taken with those taken on my own independent judgment, that in almost every instance my sample was not so fair as that taken by the purely mechanical man. Of course, if the chemist had the time to do the work himself, he would derive benefit from it wider acquaintance with raw products, of which he does not know, perhaps, so much as he ought ; but if a man of extensive pactice be called upon to analyse a substance, and gives the result, I do not se3 how he can be asked to undertake sampling, which, after all, is rather a mechanical matter than a scientific OllC.NR.JANES BET,L: In the Soiiierset House Laboratory we never, except under yery exceptional circumstances. draw snmpIes for 12 analysis ourselves. We take this course to avoid being placed in a false position should complaints arise of unfairness in the taking of the samples. Such complaints, according to our experience, do occa- sionally occur, and, when second samples are taken, acknowledged to be fairly drawn, the results of the analysis sometimes differ materially from those obtained from the samples firat taken. Not having been concerned in the taking of either of the samples in such cases, we can with every confidence report the analytical results in both cases, whether they agree or not, without fear of being charged by either side with birts or prejudice.No analyst could expect to be always successful in draffiug fair, average eamples, and if he were compelled to convict himself in an error in the performance of one duty, it is clear that this would be likely to create a doubt in the niinds of those employing him as to the accuracy of his analysis. The samples submitted to us for analysis are taken by persons entirely outside our control, and, consequently, in undertaking the analysis our minds are wholly unhiassed, and free from doubts and fears as to the unfairness or otherwise of the sample, and we find this system to work so well that I should recommend all analysts, whenever practicable, to follcw the same course.So thoroiighly are we convinced of the advantages of this system, that when requested to draw our own samples we allnod invariahly decline, and even in any exceptional case, where we rnay deem it necessary or advisable for us to do so, we are careful to have the analysia made by a different analyst to the one who took the sample. MR. C. T. RINGZETT:Apart from the iesirability or unde-sirability of samples being taken personally by analysts, I should like to ask some of the Fellows whose opinions we have heard, what there is in this perfection of mechanical skill attained by nnprofessional pemons that defies chemical science. To ensure fa,ir samples, it is only requisite to take fair quantities of any number of rnaterialr which rnay be placed before one.and I alto-gether fail to see why chemists, trained as they are in the matter of quaxiti ties arid technical knowledge, should not carry out such 13 operations more satisfactorily than untrained and scientifically- ignorant persons. 1 should certainly prefer my own samples to those taken by a wharfinger, or other similar person. For certain classes of work, such as the analysis of, say, asphalte pavements laid under contracts, it is extremely desirable that the samples should be taken by the professional chemist employed, although, doubtless, for many purposes such a precaution is not necessary. MR. NORUN TATE: I came here rather to listen than to speak, but being largely engaged in the examination of commercial pro- ducts, I may say that my own impression is, after some jears of experience, that sampling and analysis form two different classes of work.Yet I cannot but think that a chemist should be familiar with every mode of sampling, in order that he may judge whether his sample fairly represents what it is said to represent. Mr. Kingzett asks what makes sampling so difficult. I can only say I should be very sorry to trust a chemist unaccustomed to sampling to take a sample. I will mention a case in point : There was a dispute in relation to the strength of some caustic soda-ash, and it was referred to a chemist to sample and analyse, but he simply scraped off a portion of the upper surface of the contents of one of the casks, put it in a bottle, and analysed this sample, and the result was, o€course, totally wrong.I think it is necessary that a chemist should be accustomed to sampling work, because if the buyer and seller, or their representa- tives, both take samples, it is often a matter of dispute as to how much “ good” or “bad” shall be put in. This is constantly taking place. It really comes to this, that the man who samples must be a man who is daily engaged in sampling, and who knows the sort of goods he has to sample. Very much depends upon technicalities. For example, in the case of palm-oil, certain modes of procedure are prescribed by the trade. A tryer ’’ is run from the bung-hole to the bottom, and what comes out is considered a fair sample of the contents of the cask.But this oil differs ac- cording to weather aud other circumstances, and a different sample may be taken in cold to that taken in warm weather. Then there is generally a cerhin amount of dirt, and the position of this differs according to the position in which the cask was packed. A know-ledge of all these technicalities is necessary, and shows that an experienced man would do better work than a chemist unaccustomed to sampling. MR, F. A. MARNINCIsaid: 1 quite agree with Mr. Howard that the best sampling is that which is the most purely mechanical. In order to secure this, I would have examples taken from portions not exposed to view. In the only branch of sampling in which I have had any ex- perience (the coal-tar products) there is a considerable difference now as to the limits of error allowed.A few years ago manu- facturers and buyers were contented if they found samples to be within one or two units of thc truth. Now they require practically that they should be within half an unit. I attribute the increased exactness obtained in a great measure to the care exercised in drawing and preparing the samples. DR. STEVENSON:I think that in such cases as poisoning it is important that the chemist should take the samples himself, but comnionly they are taken before he hears of the case. To take samples would involve generally such an expense that few persons could afford it. Of course, in occasional cascs, people may call in chemists, but these cases must be mry few in number, and would have little effect on the general principle of sampling.DR. FRANKLAXD,in reply, said : In the first place I must ex- press my thanks to the several gentlemen who hare favoured us with their views on this subject, and for the valuable information I have gained from thein. Their reinarks have confirnied my opinion as to my incompetence to deal it-ith this subject. entirely agree with the observations which fell from Mr. Howard. Wherever the chemist can bring his skill to bear in the collection of samples, he ought, if circumstances permit, to exercise it ; for the chemist certainly ought to be better capable of taking fairer samples than a wharfinger, however well the latter may have been trained.I also agree with the opinion advanced by Mr. Maxwell Lyte, that it would be better if chemists were not 15 treated so much as a mere machine in these matters. Still, I think there are many cases in which they ought not to be taken from their work in order to draw samples of ordinary materials. No doubt it is a difficult question, but I contend that in cases where intelligence is necessary in sampling, it ought to be exercised by the chemist, and that he should, as a rule, take the samples himself. THEPRESIDENT: I think there appears to be a general con- sensus of opinion in regard to this question of sampling. Where the work is mechanical, we all agree that such mechanical work requires great experience and a certain amount of skill, neither of which may be possessed by the chemist, or can be acquired, only by long practice. But there are certain questions in which the chemist mamy usefully exercise his skill and experience-certain spccial subjects in which it devolves upon him to take samples for himself-such, for instame, as the examination of a water in respect to its wholesomeness-certain questions in which some thing more than mere intelligence must be exercised in determining how the sample is to be taken, and in examining into conditions, circum- stances, and surroundings in connection with its collection.It is very satisfactory that the conclusion we have come to is an unanimous one, and that during the discussion most of us have gained some information which cannot fail to be useful to us.Unfor-tunately Dr. Frankland has not much more of his raluable time to spare this evening, and I am doubtful how far we can encroach upon it by taking up the next question for discussion. There is, however, no reason why we should take the questions seriatim, and I think it would be convenient if we were to select one rhich not only bears somewhat upon the question we have just been discussing, but the consideration of which is, moreover, not likely to occupy much time. I would suggest, therefore, that question No. 5 be taken. THESECRETARYhaving read No. 5, MR DAVID HOWARDsaid: I must say that, so far as my experience goes, I fully agree with Dr.Frankland. I do not see how the practice of nominating chemists can be discountenanced. 16 As a matter of practice the analyst is not asked his leave, and he does not know, even when the sample comes before him. Of course if two parties agree upon an analyst it saves all furtlier question, and it is impossible to raise any dispute, and all vexatious questions of ‘‘high ” and ‘I low ” analysts are set at rest. No doubt the system of naming an analyst throws a good deal of work into the hands of those who have gained a public reputation, but this cannot be avoided. It ip, a very common thing to put down three or four well known names, and to select one. If a, buyer and seller agree to be bound by some one analyst, it certainly has immense commercial advantages.It avoids a difficult question, the question of referees in case of discrepancy. MR. TYRER: Nothing can be more invidious than the position of chemists referred to by Mr. Howard, and reputed as “ high ” or “ low,” and chosen by seller or buyer to be pitted against one another. There is no benefit from this competition, either to the chemist or to the profession. The naming of a particular chemist certainly has its advantages, and I hope this Institute will not forbid its members undertaking engagements of this kind. In my own experience, where questious have bcen referred to A. and B., and to C., in the event of A. and 13. differing, there has been a great amount of anxiety. From a commercial point of view, the system of naming an analyst of repute disposes of t’hese difficulties.DR.VOELCKER:I fully recognise the difficulty of the case, whether you take one side or the other; but it appears to me undesirable to name two chemists unless you also name a referee. No doubt to prevent all disputes the best way is for both parties to choose one chemist, If you choose two chemists, you get ‘4 high ” and ‘‘ lorn ” chemists, and that is the result of naming, and one of its drawbacks. If a buyer or seller wishes for what is called a ‘‘ high” chemist, you might give him the name of a chemist whose analysis one could tell to a half per cent. how he would bring it out. If a seller selects a “ high ” chemist, then the buyer must take a “low” one ; and the consequence of this is that a great deal of the work is left in the hands of buyers’ and sellers’ chemists. In the case of a dispute referred to a referee, the probability is that the decision of the latter is not taken as it is, but the mean of his result and that with which it agrees most closely is taken.As I said before, when two chemists are nanied you are almost bound to name a referee. MR. NORMANTATE:The question is this-Do we wish to see the practice of buying and selling on samples, as analysed by a chemist, discountenanced ? My opinion is, that whether we dis- countenance the practice or not, sales will continue to be made on the basis of tests. Therefore, if samples are to be analysed, it is better the work should be done by a chemist than by an inex-perienced person ; and far better it should be relegated to one chemist only than be placed in the hands of two chemists chosen respectively by the buyer and seller, because we do find differences in results, according as the chemist has to decide for the buyer or seller.In the case There one chemist is employed it is not so much a case of buyer or seller as deciding what is fair for both parties. NR.MAXWELLLYTE: I should submit that this matter is one of commercial convenieuce, and that it is of course natural, in order to avoid subsequent bickerings, in cases of difference, that bu-j-er and seller should agree beforehand to give their work to 80me particular chemist. It is natural, also, that under these circumstances, when certain pkoducts have to be analysed, the work should be given to particular chemists who are accustomed to the analysis of these particular products-super-phosphates, or copper, for instance.DR. FRANKLAND,in reply, said: I do not think I have any observations of importance to make in connection with the dia- cussions. On this question, there seems to be a very general unan- imity of opinion which coincide8 with the brief expressions I gave in the introduction. It has occurred to me that probably there is a feeling among the younger members of the profession that the older are usually selected for this kind of work, and I would suggest whether it is not possible for this Institute to do something by which young chemists could be brought forward.The idea of course is wholly a crude one, but if men laid themselves out for special kinds 18 of work, might there not be a register kept, so that their nnines could be placed before merchants and manufacturers ? No doubt, as Mi. Lyte has said, there are chemists of special attainments better fitted for some Binds of work than are others who hare not so qualified themselves. It is possible that something of the kind I have suggested might be adopted, and might lead to a better diffusion of this work among the profession, especially among the younger members. THEPRESIDENT:I agree with Dr. Frankland so far as to con- sider that it would be very desirable to prepare the mercantile mind for the employment of younger chemists who are well qualified by knowledge and skill for particular classes of work.Dr. Voelcker has held out a strong temptation to rising profes- sionals to become ‘‘ high ” chemists, but to counterbalance the “high ” chemists there ought, of course, to be a few ‘‘ low ” ones (laughter). On the whole, however, it appears that the practice to which this question relates, is one which may very well be left as it is. In conclusion the President said, that as there were four more questions to be discussed, and as it would be a pity to deal with them hurriedly, he would suggest that the further discussion be adjourned until a future meeting, which the Council would fix as speedily as possible. This was agreed to, and the meeting adjourned,