24 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST. 
July, 1882. 
our report and balance-sheet are both favourable; in fact, much < 
more so than were any previous ones. You will see we have 1 
still over £200 invested. This would have been very much ' 
increased but for our expenditure on three important items — < 
namely, £48 on additions to our library, £40 for supplying 
the Chemist and Druggist to the members, and £25 for pro- < 
viding lectures. You will allow that the council have 
acted very wisely in these matters. If you will just peep at 
our little library you will see what a good beginning we 
have made ; indeed, I consider that we may be justly proud of 
it. The council have determined to go on purchasing all the 
new works pertaining to chemistry and pharmacy ; and here I 
must thank our old friend Mr. Pinhey for his very valuable 
contribution of about fifty volumes of admirable works, many 
of which are now out of print. I have also to thank our 
Victorian friends for their regularity in forwarding their Sup- 
plement^ which I am sure all will find adds to their stock of 
knowledge. The addition of thirty-four new members to our list 
shows that confidence is increasing amongst our professional 
brethren in our endeavours to raise the status of dispensing 
chemists. On two matters I cannot help expressing my regret. 
The first is at finding so few young men applying for books. 
However, the fault is not ours. I have uttered warnings 
before, and if young men who will be obliged to pass our 
examinations will not indulge in a moderate amount of read- 
ing, the fault will be their own ; for although our examina- 
tions are simple, but practical, it is simply lamentable to see 
the miserable exhibitions of pharmaceutical knowledge made at 
such times. The other matter of regret is that we are yet 
without our amended bill. 1 believe pressure of business in Par- 
liament is still the cause. However, your council will not lose 
the slightest opportunity of getting it before the House. It is 
only six years since our society was formed, and very soon 
after we obtained our present Poisons Act. I think this was 
very smart work compared with what has been done in the old 
country, where the parent society was many years without 
being a legally recognised body, and where 264 years have 
elapsed before our pharmacopoeia has become what I may call 
matured, though certainly not yet perfected. While on the 
subject of pharmacopoeia, I will give you a few jottings I have 
taken on this subject from the meeting at York last year, and 
also from Bell and Bedwood’s Progress of Pharmacy. The 
first pharmacopoeia was published by the College of Physi- 
cians of London in the year 1618. This was the very first step 
taken towards reducing the process of pharmacy to a regular 
standard for the guidance of dispensers of medicine. It was, 
however, a very imperfect production. Subsequent editions 
were published by the college in 1621, 1632, 1639. 1650, 1677 ; in 
1721, 1746, 1788 ; in 1809, 1815, 1824, and 1836. The first Edin- 
burgh Pharmacopoeia was published in 1699. New edi- 
tions appeared in 1722, 1736, and 1744, and a few years 
afterwards Dr. Lewis published an English translation under 
the title of the Edinboro ’ New Dispensatory , and other 
editions followed in 1755, 1774, 1783, and in 1803, 1804, 1806, 
1813, 1817, 1839, and 1841. The first Dublin Pharmacopoeia 
was published in 1794, and another in 1805. These were 
circulated among the members of the college only. The next 
was published in 1807, and was for general circulation. This 
work which had been several years in preparation, was 
chiefly completed by Dr. Percival, at that time professor of 
chemistry in Dublin University. Another edition appeared in 
1826, chiefly completed by Professor Donovan, who, I hope, is 
known to all of you as the introducer of the well-known 
Liquor Donovani, and the last edition in 1850. Then last, but 
not least, came in 1864 the amalgamated edition, known as the 
British Pharmacopoeia , which, I believe, is considered 
universally as a great improvement in various ways on its 
predecessors, but still far from perfect. The next step has 
been to endeavour to establish a universal pharmacopoeia. In 
the history of pharmacy one of the most important events 
which has happened for some time has been the great meeting 
last year, at York, of pharmacists from almost all parts of 
the pharmaceutical world. The attention of this meeting was 
engaged on several matters of the highest importance to 
pharmacists in Australia, as well as in the older countries of 
the world. The only one I shall dwell on is the production of 
a universal pharmacopoeia. The importance and utility of 
this have been generally acknowledged by pharmaceutical 
associations in Europe, America, and Australia ; by Inter- 
national Medical Congresses at Petersburg in 1874, Brussels 
in 1875, Geneva in 1877, and Amsterdam in 1879. The Phar- 
maceutical Congress at Petersburg made a great advance in 
this direction by entertaining a draft of a universal pharma- 
copoeia prepared by the Pharmaceutical Society of Paris ; but 
none of these congresses led to any real improvement. The 
Geneva Congress of 1877 ended in establishing an international 
committee, and the pharmacological section of the Amsterdam 
Congress of 1879 contented itself with inviting the Pharma- 
ceutical Society of Paris to communicate the draft of its new 
pharmacopoeia, so as to have it printed in the transactions of 
their congress ; in short, these congresses have failed in two 
important particulars— the introduction of a universal phar- 
macopoeia and an international uniformity in medicine as 
desired by the American Medical Association. It seemed, 
therefore, desirable that the Geneva committee should be 
augmented by pharmaceutical and medical experts capable of 
securing the co-operation of countries not yet represented, 
and of confining its attention exclusively to the creation 
of a universal pharmacopoeia. The following points were 
suggested for the particular consideration of the committee, 
the settlement of these points forming the necessary basis 
for a universal pharmacopoeia. These points were — The 
languages, weights, measures, temperatures, nomenclature, 
arrangement, contents, uniform regulations as to the degree 
of purity required, methods of testing important drugs and 
chemicals, and, lastly, a table of maximum doses. It was 
suggested the language should be Latin ; the weights and 
measures should be the French decimal system ; the tempera- 
tures on the Centigrade scale ; strict uniformity in the 
botanical and other names of drugs, in the nomenclature of 
chemical compounds (adding the molecular formula where 
possible) and in the Latin terms for all galenical preparations ; 
the arrangement to be alphabetic or systematic, or a com- 
bination of both, like the last French Pharmacopoeia ; the 
contents to be limited to remedies of high importance and in 
general use, supplements to be appended for particular 
countries; uniform regulations for degrees of purity, methods 
for testing, and, ‘finally, a table of maximum doses. These 
would form the nucleus of a universal pharmacopoeia. A 
general agreement having been arrived at on the above points, 
it was considered desirable for the whole congress to employ 
their influence in their respective countries in revising their 
own pharmacopoeias in harmony with these suggestions. In 
this way the introduction of a universal pharmacopoeia would 
be greatly assisted, and immediate advantages would be con- 
ferred on medical practitioners in all countries. A comparison 
of all European pharmacopoeias would form the basis of the 
preliminary compilation. It seems now settled that the final 
results of all these deliberations are that, for the present, they 
relinquish the too difficult proposal of a universal pharma- 
copoeia, and adopt the more limited scheme of equalising the 
strength of the preparations of the most potent drugs 
generally employed in medical practice. I think all this 
seems very like the mountain in labour bringing forth a 
mouse. Still it ought to teach us a salutary lesson in patience. 
If all these eminent societies for so many years have been 
striving in vain for an improved pharmacopoeia, we may well 
go on hoping and trusting that each year will bring us an im- 
proved Pharmacy Bill ; and you may rest assured that your 
council will lose no opportunity of helping on that very 
desirable object. 
The thanks of the meeting were moved to the committee of 
the Technical College for the manner in which the society had 
been permitted to use its room for the delivering of lectures. 
It was decided to forward a letter to the committee in accord- 
ance with this resolution. 
The thanks of the meeting were also given to Mr. Pinhey 
for his valuable gift of fifty volumes of books to the library, 
the collection containing many very rare works now out of 
print ; also to Mr. Parker, of Balmain, for his gift of two 
volumes of Cooley's Cyclopcedia ; and also to Mr. W. H. H. 
Lane, for his gift of books to the same object. 
Each of these gentlemen acknowledged the courtesy. Mr. 
Lane, in doing so, remarked that he had travelled through the 
colonies, and visited all the pharmaceutical societies therein, 
and believed the New South Wales Society to have the largest 
library of any of them. It had about one-third more books 
than the Victorian Society, and he believed the latter was the 
older society of the two. He had some more works which he 
! would be glad to present to the society. 
Mr. F. Wright stated that there was great dissatisfaction in 
the minds of the associates and apprentices on account of 
i their partial and meagre representation in the society ; and 
■ having discussed the matter they thought that, with the per- 
l mission of the society, it would be wise to form a sub-society, 
■ to be called the “ Students’ Pharmaceutical Society,” the 
