662 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
E. Pulv. Argent. Nitratis gr. x 
Ext. Nucis Yomicse gr. x 
Ext. Belladonnae gr. x 
Ext. Aloes aquosse gr. x 
M. Divide in Pil. xx. 
Cne to be taken three times a day. 
E. Bismuthi Alb. 3ij 
Sodae Carbonatis 5i’j 
Aq. Menth. Pip. ad %x 
Sp. Ammon. Aromat. syj 
Syr. Zingiberis 3ss 
Acid. Hydrocyanici *140. M. 
Take one tablespoonful three times a day. 
—was brought to us to dispense, but before 
so doing the customer wished to know the 
price of it. Upon naming the price, which 
was 2s. Gd., the customer was greatly as¬ 
tounded, saying, that he had it made up by 
one of the chemists in Coventry for Is. 5d. 
Here is now an example of the undercharging 
of medicines, which has lately been of great 
annoyance to the trade; two other such com¬ 
plaints I find in the November number of 
the ‘Phaimiaceutical Journal’ for 1869. If 
such are to be the prices charged for dis¬ 
pensing medicines, I think it high time for 
those who have been at so much trouble and 
expense in qualifying themselves to set up 
in business as chemists and druggists, to 
shut up their shops, and resort so some other 
means of getting their living. I deem it im¬ 
possible for any young man to be successful 
in his trade as a chemist and druggist, 
while other men in business charge such 
low prices for compounding prescriptions as 
those in the instance I have named. Se¬ 
condly, upon the Pharmacy Act of 1868, as 
regards the sale and dispensing of poisons, 
ought not the mixture which contained acid, 
hydrocyanici <n. 40, be labelled with the 
word “ Poison ?” but such was not the case 
on the bottle, where it had been previously 
dispensed at Coventry. Hoping that I may 
see a time when the Society will have no 
men on the Eegister of Chemists and Drug¬ 
gists, who do so much injury and injustice 
to their fellow-tradesmen as those I have 
alluded to,—I am, Sir, yours truly, 
A. P. S. 
Sp. Chloeoformi v. Sp. .Etheris 
Chlobici. 
Dear Sir,—Will you pardon my occupy¬ 
ing a small space in the pages of your 
Journal upon the ever troublesome contro¬ 
versy. What does the physician mean when 
he writes spiritus setheris chlorici ? 
According to the Preface of the British 
Pharmacopoeia, we are told the intention of 
the work is “ to afford to the members of the 
medical profession, and those engaged in the 
preparation of medicines throughout the 
British Empire, one uniform standard and 
guide,” and “not so much the selection as 
the definition of substances which the phy¬ 
sician prescribes, and which are required to 
be kept at one safe and uniform standard of 
strength and composition.” It is self-evi- 
dent that if this most desirable end is to bo 
attained, it must be by a strict adherence, 
not only to the composition of the prepara¬ 
tions, but also to the nomenclature by wffiich 
they are distinguished. 
The responsibility of carrying out the 
former duty rests with the pharmacist, but 
upon the medical profession essentially de¬ 
volves the latter, and non-attendance to this 
all-important duty, not only puts upon us, 
as dispensers, unnecessary difficulty and un¬ 
certainty, but also incurs the risk of patients 
being supplied with medicines varying most 
materially in strength and appearance. 
It is a well-known fact, that there being 
no authorized formula for sp. aetheris chlorici, 
its strength varies most materially, from 1 
in 7 to 1 in 16; the consequence is, that 
when the rule, which many houses adopt, is 
observed, of using either sp. aether, ehlor. or 
sp. chlorofonni, according to whichever may 
be written in the prescription, a mixture 
would be presented to the customer totally 
differing in strength and appearance to that 
w hich would be received from another house, 
where, the orders of the Pharmacopoeia being 
attended to, spiritus chlorofonni is adhered 
to as the cnly authorized preparation. 
Mr. Squire, in his 1 Companion to the 
British Pharmacopoeia,’ seems to solve the 
difficulty by the following note, “Formerly 
called chloric ether, and of various strengths,” 
clearly implying that sp. chlorof., a definite 
and uniform preparation, is to take the place 
of, and supersede the unsatisfactory and 
doubtful chloric ether. 
The remedy appears to be twofold, as re¬ 
gards ourselves as pharmacists, to adhere to 
the Pharmacopoeia preparation; as regards 
the physicians and surgeons, for the subject 
to be personally brought before their notice, 
and the difficulty clearly pointed out. The 
necessity for adopting the proper name 
would then be apparent, and the obsolete 
term would cease to trouble us. 
I am, Sir, faithfully yours, 
Edwin B. Yizer. 
63, Lupus Street, Belgravia South, 
March 21st, 1870. 
Trade “Inquiries.” 
Sir,—I think the recipe published in your 
February number for Jockey Club Bouquet, 
is of rather too expensive a character to 
come under the appellation of “Utile.” It 
struck me at first sight there might have 
been an error in printing, and that the 
quantity of otto should be 3iss> instead of 
3 iss, but as no correction has been published 
I have no right to assume this really to be 
the case. The following receipt makes a 
good and inexpensive article:— 
