G19 
January 27,1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
Mttos. 
The Pocket Formulary, and Synopsis of the Bri¬ 
tish and Foreign Pharmacopceias. By Henry 
Beasley. Ninth. Edition, including the Formulae of 
the British Pharmacopoeia, 1867, etc. etc. 1872. 
Pp. 547. 
The new edition of this handy counter companion to 
the dispensing chemist completes the list of practical 
pharmaceutical handbooks, the publication of which has 
been rendered necessary by the issue of the British 
Pharmacopoeia of 1867. 
The Editor, in preparing this edition for the press, has 
availed himself of all the most recent publications bear¬ 
ing on his work, and has included most of the new re¬ 
medies of permanent value. He gives us, in one handy 
volume, the formulas and processes contained in the last 
British Pharmacopoeia, in Squire’s ‘ Companion ’ and the 
Pharmacopoeias of the different London hospitals, be¬ 
sides a copious selection from foreign Pharmacopoeias 
and formularies. 
So far as we have been able to test the formulas by 
reference to original sources, this edition appears to 
surpass all that have preceded it in accuracy, condensa¬ 
tion and perspicuity; and we most cordially recommend 
every member of the trade to protset himself against 
possible mistakes on the part of his assistants or appren¬ 
tices by burning or hiding all the previous editions in 
his possession, and substituting for them the particular 
one to which we now direct the attention of our readers. 
St. George’s Hospital Reports. Edited by John 
W. Ogle, M.D., and Timothy Holmes, F.R.C.S. 
Yol.Y. London: Churchill. . 
This volume is less rich in matter of purely pharma¬ 
ceutical interest than its predecessors ; but we notice it 
as one of a series in which all who are concerned, directly 
or remotely, in the art of healing will find instruction and 
rational entertainment. The names of its editors—the 
one a distinguished graduate of the University of Oxford, 
the other an equally distinguished graduate of the Uni¬ 
versity of Cambridge—are guarantees for the correct¬ 
ness and even finish of style which will be found in its 
contributors. Another laudable feature of the volume— 
distinguishing it from similar publications (like that of 
Guy’s for example)—is its selection of articles not from 
members of the hospital staff merely, but from all who 
have been students of St. George’s, thus giving to the 
ensemble a completeness and a variety which can only be 
got by relieving the purely scientific matter with that 
obtained from the outlying field of general practice. 
Dr. Clifford Allbutt’s paper on the “ Effects of Over¬ 
work and Strain,” is of interest for all professional men 
in these days of high pressure competition and general 
“ haste to be rich ” ; while the very elaborate contribu¬ 
tion on the “ Relative Influence of Bread, Honey and 
Sugar upon the amount of Urea and Sugar excreted in 
Diabetes” has much to attract those of our readers who 
devote themselves to physiological chemistry and the 
action of remedies. The annual reports of cases are care¬ 
fully compiled; the most effective, at least in the eyes of 
lay readers, being that on the ophthalmic department, 
by Mr. Brudenell Carter, who is known beyond the pro¬ 
fession for high proficiency as a specialist and as a 
writer of varied accomplishments. The entertaining 
article of the volume is that of Mr. \Y. Ewart, on a 
“ German Feld-Lazareth,” the perusal of which will be¬ 
guile one of those winter evenings, which remind us of 
the terrible sufferings endured on the field and mitigated 
in the ambulance a twelvemonth ago. 
Altogether, the present volume reflects much credit on 
the past and present working of St. George’s,—the en¬ 
gravings being, perhaps, the only point in which we can 
desiderate improvement. 
Camspttatt. 
*** Yo notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the xcriter ; not necessarily 
for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Pharmaceutical Examination. 
Sir,—I have just read your lengthy report of Mr. L. Sie- 
bold’s lecture at Manchester, and am sorry that it has been 
thought worthy to be reported in extenso. I cannot but be¬ 
lieve that it is likely to do an immense amount of harm, and is 
calculated to engender unpleasant feelings between students 
and “the powers that be.” In my opinion that lecture 
abounds with absurdities and inaccuracies, and is calculated 
to reflect no little discredit (not to say disgrace) on both ex¬ 
aminers and examined. 
Mr. S. is, I believe, “ a teacher of Pharmacy,” and seems 
to complain that so many candidates are “ plucked.” I can¬ 
not help contrasting his remarks with those made by another 
Professor a short time ago,—Dr. Attfield, of London, who 
says that, as a rule, he does not admit the possibility of his 
candidates being rejected. Mr. S.’s remarks on this subject, 
then, reflect more on the teacher than the pupil; since these 
contrary statements cannot be reconciled but on the ground 
that the London candidates are better prepared than the 
Manchester ones! 
With regard to the order of reading recommended by Mr. 
S., I would not advise any one to follow it, as I feel confident 
that reading by snatches of a day or two at subjects alter¬ 
nately, must inevitably end in confusion of thought, and hence 
failure when the time for testing one’s knowledge comes. 
As to botany, Mr. S. seems to think the study of this sci¬ 
ence entirely unnecessary, and that it is irksome and un¬ 
called for in practice. I would simply ask him how his non- 
botanical student would understand one-half the definitions 
of materia medica in the B. P. Take the description of Fol. 
Buchu; who, without some knowledge of botany, would under¬ 
stand anything about “pellucid dots” or “indentations”? 
This is a simple illustration, but similar ones occur on almost 
every page of the work mentioned. I say nothing about the 
imperative necessity that a professional man should be pos¬ 
sessed of such elementary knowledge as the distinctions 
between a corm and bulb, etc. 
I, for one, should be very sorry to see our Minor so de¬ 
graded as to require only what could not be done without; 
and I further maintain that the knowledge required by the 
Major is something more than merely useful in business. 
Mr. S. assumes that we all know “ that able and well- 
qualified men fail, and others quite incompetent succeed.” I, 
for one, very gravely doubt the truth of this assertion, and I 
consider it almost impossible that such an accident can happen 
with the machinery we have in force at Bloomsbury Square. 
My personal experience of the examinations is not of the 
smallest, and the information I repeatedly receive from both 
successful and rejected candidates entirely establishes my own 
opinion. The Board of Examiners are, as a rule, courteous 
and gentlemanly, and the examinations are conducted in such 
a manner that each candidate has the fairest and fullest 
chance of success. 
As to Mr. S>s remarks on practical pharmacy, they are on 
the face of them so absurd as to be almost beneath one’s 
notice. He seems to ignore the B.P. altogether,—the book 
of all books, which the student should have the most know¬ 
ledge of. 
In conclusion, I would recommend any intending candi¬ 
date, instead of being misled by the lecturer into finding fault 
with the subjects, to go carefully through the synopsis pub¬ 
lished by the Society, and fairly read up each department 
as there set forth; and this done, I would say, “ your success 
is certain.” 
I would just add that the Chairman of the meeting dis¬ 
played some ignorance of the Pharmacy Act, as in section 16, 
it is distinctly stated that any executor or trustee may con¬ 
tinue the business of a deceased chemist under the manage¬ 
ment of a qualified man. 
Benjamin Keen. 
Uppingham, January 23rd, 1872. 
