392 
PHARMACEUTICAL MEETING. 
alkaloids from them ; and, if so, could he state what proportion of alkaloids the 
barks yielded ? 
Mr. Howard said that having had occasion to cut down one of his plants, in 
consequence of an accident, he availed himself of the opportunity of stripping 
off the bark and extracting the alkaloids. He obtained some good sulphate of 
quinine, and also some cinchonine. As near as he could recollect, the propor¬ 
tion of alkaloids was between one and two per cent. 
The Chairman said that before they proceeded to the next paper, he would 
introduce to the notice of the meeting a very beautiful piece of silver plate which 
Mr. Hills had placed upon the table that evening. It was a very great curiosity, 
bearing date 1669, and was of a purely pharmaceutical character, having around 
the margin various devices of the different utensils used in the laboratory and 
shop, including a very modern-looking drum-sieve. The plate was purchased at 
Christie and Manson’s on the 10th of November, at a sale of the effects of the 
late Edmund Hopkinson, Esq. There were also upon the table some poison- 
bottles of a novel construction, sent by Mr. Schweitzer. One was a poison- 
bottle for powders. It contained a diaphragm, perforated by a large hole to 
fill it, and a smaller hole. The large hole being corked, there was a small 
aperture, so that the poison might be shaken out in small quantities, the idea 
being, that it could not, under any circumstances, be mistaken for a bottle con¬ 
taining non-poisonous substances. There was another bottle for fluids of a 
similar construction,—a perforated diaphragm below the stopper, and the liquid 
could only come out in driblets. 
NOTES ON THE PHARMACOPOEIA. 
BY PROFESSOR REDWOOD. 
More than two years have elapsed since the last publication of the British 
Pharmacopoeia, and, as the work came into general use throughout the United 
Kingdom soon after its publication, there has now been time enough to ascer¬ 
tain how far it fulfils the purpose for which it was intended. Prequent refe¬ 
rence has been made to its contents in papers which have been read before this 
Society at its evening meetings, and much valuable information has been elicited 
by the discussions which have taken place upon such occasions. Communications 
of a similar description have also appeared in the Pharmaceutical and other 
Journals, in which many of the processes of the Pharmacopoeia have been com¬ 
mented upon, and a variety of criticisms have been published. 
In a work so frequently and extensively used as is the Pharmacopoeia, and 
used under such a variety of circumstances, by prescribers, dispensers, and 
manufacturers of medicines, who respectively refer to it for distinct and different 
purposes, but each and all of whom expect to find the required information ex¬ 
pressed in the form best suited to supply their wants, it might be naturally sup¬ 
posed that there would be differences of opinion on some points affecting either the 
nature of the matter or the method of disposing of it. That such differences 
have been expressed, and freely discussed, may be considered as an indication of 
the general interest which has been manifested in the subject, and of the capa¬ 
bilities of the existing race of pharmaceutists to criticize a work of this descrip¬ 
tion. 
It has been my duty to note the purport of the various statements which 
have been published respecting the Pharmacopoeia, and also to collect informa¬ 
tion from private sources, including my own experiences, for the purpose of 
reporting on these subjects to the Pharmacopoeia Committee of the Medical 
