LIVERPOOL CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
275 
The new work comprises a far larger amount of information than did any preceding 
pharmacopoeia published in these islands. The number of preparations is increased ; 
and old favourites omitted from the last edition appear in this. In the most prominent 
particulars in which it differs from the London Pharmacopoeia, it resembles the first 
British, that is to say, it is in the Eoglish language, and it adopts the imperial avoirdu¬ 
pois ounce and pound, omitting the denominations dram and scruple. In this respect 
the colleges have complied with the wish which you expressed on the 26th of May, 
1859,— 
“ That the Chemists’ Association are strongly of opinion, that avoirdupois weights 
ought to be adopted in the new Pharmacopoeia, but that the value of the grain weight 
ought not to be altered, and that the signs 9i, 5 i, and ^i, should represent respectively, 
as hitherto, 20 grs., 60 grs., and 480 grs.” 
To be accurate, I should except the sign 5 , for the colleges do not recognize it at all, 
but it continues in use, and probably will do so for a long time. 
It differs from all preceding pharmacopoeias in that it gives the doses of the medicines, 
and states many particulars respecting the relation of the new preparations to the old 
ones. It is, I may say, condescending in its explicitness ; for instance, in directing the 
examination of Liquor Sodse Chloratae, we are told to take 70 grains by weight , to put 
us on our guard against substituting minims. It is found necessary, for the purposes 
of volumetric analysis, to use a measure which is not mentioned in the table-of weights 
and measures,—the 1000 grs. measure of water divided decimally. And this leads me to 
remind you, that previous to the publication of the London Pharmacopoeia of 1836, the 
minim was the same as a fluid grain of water; and on some occasions it would be very 
convenient if such were still the case. The Pharmacopoeia has adopted a measure of length, 
which I think might well have been consigned to the same grave as the troy weights. 
It is called a line, and is defined to be the twelfth of an inch. The only use made of it, 
as far as I have observed, is in the description of the capsicum fruit, which is said to be 
from 5 to 8 lines long and 2 lines broad. It is an odd exemplification of the tendency 
to multiply words. 
It is due to the authors of the first British Pharmacopoeia to say, that but for their 
labours and the criticisms to which they were exposed, the present edition would hardly 
have attained its actual fulness and excellence. The result is, that a book has been 
produced which will be found in common use in numerous places where the authorized 
standard was never formerly seen. How little the official work was formerly known, 
was exemplified in the defect frequently alleged against the edition of 1864,—that it did 
not state the doses. The persons who made the complaint only knew the Pharmaco¬ 
poeia from compilations and commentaries. Some of these were eminently valuable, as, 
for instance ‘Christison’s ‘Dispensatory;’ and I wish we could see a prospect of the pub¬ 
lication of a similar work, adapted to the present Pharmacopoeia. 
It must be confessed that our system of weights is not perfectly satisfactory, and it 
is sometimes very clumsily adapted to its purpose. Take, for instance, an extempora¬ 
neous formula, such as Mistura Gruaiaci, and suppose that six ounces are wanted ; you 
must calculate what six-twentieths of half an ounce amounts to in grains, and then 
what six-twentieths of a quarter of an ounce is. Such instances are rare and unimpor¬ 
tant and not worth mentioning, except for the purpose of illustration. But they would 
have been obviated by the more universal use of the grain ; and this, I think, should be 
aimed at, rather than the introduction of the French system ; not that the French sys¬ 
tem is not better than ours, but because a violent change of such a nature produces ex¬ 
treme inconvenience. How soon would the medical profession of this country learn to 
prescribe in grammes , and how many mistakes would occur whilst they were learning ? 
I see no difficulty in our compounding in grammes, if the Pharmacopoeia and prescrip¬ 
tions were written accordingly: but I believe that the weight expressed by the word 
grain is a more convenient integer for prescribing, and when convenience shall have 
dictated its more and more general use, I hope we may be able to drop all other weights, 
for, after all, the principal advantage of the French system is, that they use but one 
iuteger. 
The alphabetical arrangement is more completely carried out in the new Pharma¬ 
copoeia than it was in its predecessor, and an index is needless, except for the appendix, 
where the old plan inconveniently lingers. 
I do not mean to go over the details of the Pharmacopoeia as we did on a former oc- 
T 2 
