370 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[November 9, 1872. 
of 1824. Mr. Greenish, had asked what would he the 
loss of spirit in making the tincture. If tincture of 
lemon made from fresh peel be taken as an ex¬ 
ample, then a ‘gain rather than a loss might be 
expected. The objection to the foreign dried peel 
was, he believed, its adulteration with sweet orange 
peel, and the taste was the only means by which one 
could be distinguished from the other. Referring to 
specific gravities, he should expect there would be 
great difference with a tincture prepared with spirit 
strictly proof and a spirit diluted with such variable pro¬ 
portions of water as would be contained in fresh orange 
peel. He imagined that the compilers of the Phar¬ 
macopoeia had discontinued the use of fresh peel 
merely on account of the difficulty there was at all 
seasons in obtaining the peel. Seville oranges were 
not always to be had at any time of the year, whereas 
dried peel could be always procured. After making the 
tincture from the fresh peel for a period of forty years, 
the house in which he was engaged had, upon his recom¬ 
mendation, discontinued the use of the fresh peel on 
account of complaints that had reached them that 
the tincture from the fresh peel, when diluted with 
water, had a much more milky appearance than that 
made from the dried peel. They now prepared tincture 
from dried peel as directed in the British Pharmacopoeia. 
Mr. Haselden, in reply to Mr. Umney, said he be¬ 
lieved that the reason dried peel was ordered in the 
B. P. was out of regard to convenience, as it could be 
purchased at any time of the year. His object in bring¬ 
ing forward the paper was not to support any opinion 
of his. own, but merely to show what his results had 
Deen in preparing samples from dried peel and from 
fresh peel. He appeared to have been unfortunate in 
the fresh peel he obtained, inasmuch as he believed it 
would be decided against the tincture from the fresh 
peel which he had made. He could not imagine how 
Mr. Sandford in making his tincture did not get rather 
more tincture when finished than the amount of proof 
spirit he commenced with. 
Mr. Sandford repeated that there was no loss what¬ 
ever, but rather a gain. 
Mr. Haselden said that in making the tincture from 
the fresh peel, he really obtained two ounces in the pint 
more than he ought to have had, the moisture in the 
peel having produced that result; whereas, in the tinc¬ 
ture made with the dried peel he lost about two ounces 
in the pint. That accounted in some measure for the 
difference in the specific gravities. The tincture made 
with the fresh peel was '944; that made with the fresh peel 
dried by himself was -936; whereas that made from 
the dried peel was only -926 from the English cut peel, 
and only -922 from the foreign cut peel. The specific 
gravity of that made from the dried foreign cut peel by 
percolation, was '938, exactly the same specific gravity 
as that which Mr. Stoddart mentioned in his paper at 
the Pharmaceutical Conference. He (Mr. Haselden) 
could, only account for its going up to -938 from the fact 
that in percolation, when they displaced by water, they 
got some of the water mixed up with the spirit, whereby 
the specific gravity was altered. 
Mr. Bland said they were apt to overlook the fact 
that tincture of orange peel was desirable on account of 
two distinct properties. One was its fine aromatic per¬ 
fume, and the other its bitter, which caused it to be 
regarded as a slight tonic. If they wanted a fine aroma¬ 
tic fla\ our, he v*as satisfied that fresh peel must be used, 
and not.only that, but rectified spirit. A single drachm 
of the tincture made with rectified spirit from fresh peel 
would give as much of the aromatic flavour as a couple 
of. ounces of tincture made with proof spirit from the 
dried peel. If they wanted a light bitter, then dried 
peel and proof spirit were the things to use. 
Mr. Brown said he had had some considerable ex¬ 
perience in making tincture of orange peel for flavouring 
Purposes, and he entirely differed from the statement 
just made—that rectified spirit with fresh peel made a 
better flavour than dilute spirit. He should assuredly 
prefer dilute spirit as taking more of the flavour from the- 
peel than the rectified spirit, and as being more manageable- 
afterwards. He endorsed what Mr. Sandford had said, 
that the peel must be fresh, and must be cut most care¬ 
fully so as to remove the white without injuring the 
vessels containing the essential oil. It required a con¬ 
siderable length of maceration, much longer than most 
other tinctures. Generally speaking, he had not found 
that a satisfactory result had been obtained in less than, 
a month or six weeks. 
The Proposed Universal Pharmacopeia. 
Dr. Redwood read a paper on the proposed Universal. 
Pharmacopoeia. 
The paper is printed at p. 361. After it was read— 
Dr. Thudichum said the proposal of publishing a 
European pharmacopoeia originated entirely with Pro¬ 
fessor Phoebus, of Giessen, in 1869, although it had 
been communicated to him (Dr. Thudichum) in 1867 ; 
so that the proposition made at Vienna was subsequent 
to the initiation of the enterprise. In speaking on this- 
subject, he should have the advantage of referring to a 
memorial, which Professor Phoebus in the course of last 
year handed to the Commission appointed by the Im¬ 
perial Government of Germany to perfect a general 
German Pharmacopoeia. The first great reason for 
having a universal pharmacopoeia was that there might 
be introduced into medical literature a uniformity off 
statement as to the medicines which were used by 
various physicians in different parts of the world. The- 
second reason was, that the dispensing of medicines and 
prescriptions which had been carried from one land to- 
another, frequently, caused even to the most accomplished 
pharmacist great difficulty and loss of time ; often load¬ 
ing him with a responsibility for which he was not pre¬ 
pared. In the third place, physicians sojourning in. 
various parts of the world, were called upon to treat 
strangers and sojourners who congregated in climatic and. 
hygienic places, such as those on the borders of the Medi¬ 
terranean. In those places a great variety of people from 
all nations were brought together, and required that the- 
local physician should administer to them medicines, and 
frequently aid them in getting the prescriptions properly 
dispensed which they carried with them from their native- 
places. Under these circumstances, great difficulties often 
arose, because the physician of the locality was unable at 
first sight, and without great preparation, to appreciate 
the purport of the prescription which the patient brought 
with him. These three classes of difficulties caused mis¬ 
understandings and mistakes, and the patient migcht to- 
some extent suffer in consequence of them. A care¬ 
ful selection of the most necessary items to be received 
in the European Pharmacopoeia had numbered abov& 
two thousand, and it was utterly impracticable for a 
man to command any knowledge of two thousand drugs.. 
So, too, when a physician went from one country to another,, 
and found a different pharmacopoeia, he could not imme¬ 
diately follow the footsteps of his predecessor. The 
differences of remedies in the different countries were in¬ 
most cases justified by no practical necessity. Cer¬ 
tainly from his (Dr. Thudichum’s) point of standing as 
a physician, he could say, that so far as he was con¬ 
cerned, he would adopt any of the various formulas- 
which were given in the pharmacopoeias if he could 
attain uniformity. It was not a question of great scientific 
moment which formula they adopted, so that they had 
uniformity throughout the whole of the pharmacopoeias. 
During the last 200 years many men had tried to realize- 
the idea of a general pharmacopoeia, and the most fre¬ 
quent experiments had been made by single physicians 
and single pharmacists, each of whom had endeavoured to- 
carry out his own idea in his own way, without any 
sort of co-operation with others. The first was Nic~ 
Lemery, who wrote a Pharmacopee Universelle, and. 
published it in the year 1697. There was further,. 
