500 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December 16,1871. 
with the use of the ugly words to which I have been so freely 
treated; it appears rather to show that the gentlemen who 
have been so ready to condemn me are quite ready to adopt 
any pet schemes of their own, whether in accordance with the 
intentions of the prescriber or not. I would suggest that in 
future, when disposed to accuse other people of improper 
practices, they should be quite sure their own practice is pure; 
whilst to Mr. Clark I would say that his “ presumption that 
the Manchester chemists have but las notions of the duties 
of their calling” strongly suggests one of .ZEsop’s fables which 
tells how a sick and aged lion was treated by certain other 
quadrupeds,—only that the Manchester chemists are not yet 
quite in the condition of the poor old lion. 
F. IV. S. has mistaken my question in reference to the 
second prescription named in my letter of the 20th ult. I 
did not refer to the manipulation at all, but to the directions 
of the prescriber; the weight of the ingredients was 9 grs., 
and the directions were “ Fin ge in pilulam. Sumat duas 
h. s.,” and I wished to know what T. IB. would have done in 
that case, the physician not being accessible. 
Referring to your article of the 25th ult., where you lay it 
down as being “ clearly and positively the duty of the dis¬ 
penser to communicate with the prescriber in all cases of 
doubt or difficulty,” no doubt it is so in theory, but hardly 
possible in practice. There are cases where it is easy enough 
to do so, as for instance where the prescriber lives near the 
dispenser, or the hours are known when he may be seen; but 
suppose the case of a physician residing in another town, or 
whose name I do not know or for any other reason cannot get 
access to, and I receive a prescription which contains a 
palpable error, but I can plainly see what is intended,—am I 
to decline to dispense it until the prescriber can be commu¬ 
nicated with ? Should I not rather use my own common 
sense, dispense the medicine as it was meant to be, and let 
the patient have it at once, which might be of consequence, 
and so save all parties from the annoyance a contrary course 
would have produced ? 
I do not by any means suppose it the “whole duty” of the 
dispenser to guess at what he cannot read, to remedy real or 
imaginary errors, or to reduce a dangerous dose; on the con¬ 
trary, I believe it to be our duty in all such cases to consult 
the prescriber where it is possible to do so, but at the same 
time I do not quite see why the study of chemistry, materia 
medica, botany, pharmacy, etc. should be so much insisted on 
if we are not to use the knowledge we possess when occasion 
requires it. 
Cheetham Hill , Dec. 5th, 1871. TV. Wilkinson. 
The British PnARMAcoranA. 
Sir,—The members of the Pharmaceutical Society, and 
British pharmacists generally, may fairly congratulate them¬ 
selves on the paper, by the learned professor of chemistry 
and pharmacy, read at the last monthly meeting night. 
My present purpose is not to advocate the adoption of the 
metric system; it will come in time, under what names soever 
the subdivisions might be known in England. But I sub¬ 
mit that we should have no objection to its use in pharmacy 
(including in that term pharmaceutical chemistry) from the 
public. We should, I think, have only to meet the medical 
profession and the older members of our own profession. And 
I would submit to these that the adjustment of the Pharma¬ 
copoeia would be far more easy than at first sight appears. 
Hence the association with a given proportion of the active 
ingredients in a compound need not be rudely disturbed. 
The change of the unit would not be so very complex a process. 
What is the foundation for the quantity implied by “ grain” 
and “minim”? These are the units for both weight and 
volume. The unit of the metric system was true and easily 
found while yet a stone of the pyramids was not laid, and 
it must last to the end of time. 
Hence, in multiplying and dividing by 10, I hope we are 
smoothing somewhat the devious path for students, both me¬ 
dical and pharmaceutical. At present, no anxiety as to ma¬ 
nufacturing and philosophical chemistry need have place. 
We surely should hardly declare ourselves against so phi¬ 
losophical and easy a change. Our German brethren, left 
(as I have been assured by a Prussian pharmacist) no less 
than our own body, in past years, to their own opportunities 
of acquiring a knowledge of their profession, would hardly 
award us much credit for our want of “pluck” to grapple 
with a thing like this. 
I have said here nothing as to its adaptability at present, 
to the daily requirements of the community. 
W. H. L. 
Improved Tincture Press. 
Sir,—I thought it unnecessary to reply to a letter signed 
“An Old Engineer,” but several friends urged me to do so, 
as it assumes my ignorance of the pressure being greater on a. 
small than on a large cylinder; or, in other words, that a 
total pressure on a certain superficial area would give the 
obvious result of so much per square inch! The fact is 
that only the total pressure has been taken into consideration 
in the course of this discussion. “An Old Engineer ” is evi¬ 
dently prejudiced against my press; yet he confirms my 
opinion of its originality, simplicity and economy, and, not 
finding anything to say against its principle and construction, 
condemns the materials and workmanship as unequal to the- 
power of the implement, in which opinion I cordially agree. 
However, it was not to reply to this that I once more tres¬ 
pass on the valuable pages of your journal; but, finding myself 
involved in a rather serious private correspondence on the sub¬ 
ject, it will save much unnecessary trouble if allowed to in¬ 
form your readers that I am not a manufacturer of, or dealer 
in tincture presses, but will be pleased to continue to give any 
information that may be required. 
Fulham, S.W., December 11 th, 1871. C. A. Staples. 
The Preliminary Examination. 
Sir,—The communication from “Veritas” in last week’s 
Journal gives me possession of facts which I would gladly 
have known before. He informs mo- that AT. D.’s master 
(who, I am glad to see, shares similar opinions with myself 
respecting him) was unaware of that gentleman’s kind attempt 
to sound liis master’s trumpet in conjunction with his own. 
Now, although I greatly regret giving offence to any one, 
and willingly retract the objectionable sentence, seeing that 
it causes “so much pain and annoyance,” I may perhaps be’ 
allowed to assert, without fear of bringing any further re¬ 
provals upon myself, that my remark was a most natural 
conclusion to draw, when such words were inserted as “ now 
with Mr. J. M. IV., Pharmaceutist, Oakham,” previous to the 
glowing account of the examination, for, as a rule, a small 
amount of credit is reflected on a master when one of those 
under his charge shows a proficiency in any examination. 
In regard to the quotation from Byron to which “ Veritas’' 
so kindly treats me, I beg to remind him that even if “critics, 
all are ready made,” they have no less power for that reason, 
—a power which, if rightly used, works infinite good. Could 
Byron have seen the late controversy on his own character 
he would, perhaps, have given “Veritas” a few still more- 
sarcastic lines to quote. 
In conclusion, let me thank “Veritas” for giving mo the 
opportunity of showing how fair in criticism 1 wish to bo. 
December \2th, 1871. IV. H. J. 
[A* IVe think that sufficient space has been given to this 
subject, and the correspondence must now cease.— Ed. 
Pharm. Journ.] 
J. D. W .—You may obtain what you require from any 
manufacturer of chemical apparatus. 
T. A .—Mohr and Redwood’s ‘Practical Pharmacy.’ 
W. Sandall. —Fresenius’s ‘Quantitative Analysis’ is a 
good work on the subject. Quantitative analysis is not an 
easy operation, and there is no easy book for teaching it. 
To perform it properly, the operator requires to have a tho¬ 
rough knowledge of chemistry. 
“ Veritas.” —(1..) The Preliminary Examination can only 
be passed, either in the country or in London, on the days, 
specified in the official notice. See first page of wrapper. 
(2.) The last edition was published in 1851. 
IF. D. Williams .—You will find answers to your question 
in Pharm. Journ. 3rd ser. vol. i. pp. 377, 397. 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Mr. J. J. Nicholson, Mr. J. Hallawell, Mr. R. Bannister, Mr. 
J. C. Brough, Mr. Chandler, Mr. E. Rimmel, Mr. J. Brad¬ 
shaw, Mr. T. Appleton. Mr. Stokes, Mr, IV. Hills, Mr.IV. J. 
Smith, Mr. A. IV. Bennett, “A Commercial Traveller.” 
“A Yarmouth Member” and “A Country Chemist” have not 
complied with the rule respecting anonymous communications. 
