l^l# The Edinburgh Fharmacopaieti 187 



Article III. 



Memarks on Mr. Phillips's Analysis of the Pharmacopaia Collegia- 

 Regit Medicorum Edinburgensis,^ contained in a Letter addressed 

 to li. Phillips^ Esq. By Dr. Hope, Professor of Chemistry 

 in the University of Edinburgh. 



SIR, Edinhurgh, Feh. 12, 1821, 



The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in preparing 

 new editions of their Pharmacopoeia gladly avail themselves of 

 every suggestion that may enable them to render that work wor- 

 thy of the public confidence ; and 1 entertain no doubt that here^-i*^ 

 after they will continue to be thankful for services of the lik^d^ 

 description under whatever form they may present themselves. .^- 



Well acquainted with your knowledge of chemistry in general, 

 and your attention to the chemical department of Pharmaco- 

 poeias in particular, I confidently expected that the criticism 

 which you have thought it worth while to give of the last edition, 

 even after a lapse of nearly four years since its publication, 

 would have afforded much useful information to guide us in pre- 

 paring a future one. I cannot, however, conceal how greatly I 

 have been disappointed in this respect. As your remarks are 

 far from being in a strain of approbation, and as the chemical 

 department had in a great measure been entrusted to me, I feeli 

 that I owe it to the College, over whom I had the honour of 

 presiding, when that edition came forth, to maintain their credit 

 in regard to this work, which, from a certain degree of national 

 authority in the preparation of drugs attached to it in this part of 

 the empire, ought to be as free from blemish, and stand as higijf^^ 

 in the pubfic estimation, as possible. :''■ 



1 undertake the task without reluctance, both because I consi- 

 der it a duty incumbent upon^me, and because, if I do not 

 deceive myself, I can easily make it appear that the strictures 

 ■which you have published upon its formulas are by no means welt 

 founded. 



Had you been aware that the late edition was several years 

 under revisal, and that many trials were made of the difterenti" 

 processes directed in the most esteemed Pharmacopoeias im 

 Europe with the view of ascertaining their comparative merited; 

 and that those adopted by us have in general been many times 

 repeated, I am persuaded that the tone at least of the criticism 

 would have been considerably different. 



Permit me to observe that most of your objections to thtr" 

 formulas apply to the relative quantities of the materials employed, 

 andi rest upon- these quantities^ deviating from the proportions ofe' 



