336 LEEDS chemists’ association. 
yet to be established in all the principal towns in the kingdom. One thing is certain, 
that we must not depend any longer upon the medical profession for advancing phar¬ 
macy, but on ourselves alone. It is true that, as things are at present arranged, the 
Medical Council have the responsibility of compiling a national Pharmacopoeia, and it 
is to be hoped that their future efforts in this direction will be more successful than the 
last. But there seems to be something arising from the constitution of the Council 
which prevents them from boldly adopting improvements. They have to do so much 
in the way of compromise, that they naturally fail to please either side. “ Medio tutis- 
simiis ibis " may do for a motto on the sign of a public-house, as may be seen at Ap- 
perley Bridge, but it seems to me not well adapted for the compilers of a Pharmacopoeia. 
Without referring to some of the absurd errors the Council committed in the last edition, 
such as ordering the mineral acids to be made of such strength that they would neither 
keep nor be safely carried, there are three vexed questions that will be brought before 
them, viz. those relating to nomenclature, weights and measures, and symbols, con¬ 
cerning which I v/ould respectfully make a few suggestions, if my opinion were required. 
1st. Let such names be adopted as are best known, and not likely to confound things 
that differ. For instance, it is most dangerous to give names to calomel and corrosive 
sublimate so as to leave it for a moment doubtful which is meant. Let scientific 
precision and theory go to the winds, rather than human life be put in jeopardy. These 
were my sentiments as given in the ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal,’ so long ago as 1848, and 
I think it would have been well if subsequent editors of the Pharmacopoeia had more 
fully recognized them. 
2nd. I would go in boldly for the metric system of weights and measures. It is 
making advances abroad, it is imiversally used by scientific chemists, and it is now 
legalized with a view of being authoritatively adopted throughout England. Surely 
the spirit of mediocrity will no longer inspire the Council to refuse to adopt a method 
so full of advantages. 
3rd. Symbols are not of so much consequence. If the unitary system is decidedly 
preferable, as I suppose it is, then why not venture to make use of the most modern 
system of notation, though Dr. Apjohn and Dr. Taylor should talk of breaking their 
hearts about it ? But if such an event be really imminent, I am humane enough to 
suggest that no symbols at all should be employed, for they are of little practical use in 
a Pharmacopoeia, though of course essential to a chemical treatise. 
Our respected Secretary suggested at our last meeting that it would be very desirable 
to commence a Materia Medica Museum in connection with our Association. I dare say 
he will develope his own ideas on the subject; but I mention it now because I think it is 
well worthy of being seriously entertained. The Museum might be begun on a small and 
inexpensive scale, not attempting to collect a compMe set of specimens, but limiting our¬ 
selves at present to those which are unusual or novel—such, in short, as we are not all 
likely to see in our own shops. Specimens, I think, would come in abundantl^q and 
could not fail to interest and instruct. They would be much more useful to us than a 
larger collection in a distant place, because we could carefully examine them at leisure. 
Our object is to render our Association as useful as possible to the body of members. 
We ought therefore, I think, to pay special attention to the Library, because every 
member can make use of it if he choose to do so, whereas the long hours of business 
which unfortunately prevail, may prevent him from attending lectures or meetings. By 
means of the Library more especially we ought to enable our members to keep pace with 
the progress of pharmacy, chemistry, and materia medica, and the addition of a select 
museum will greatly aid them to do so. 
It will be remembered that Mr. Smeeton told us at our last meeting of his admiration 
of Mr. luce’s “ Essay on Pharmaceutical Ethics,” stating that he thought it well worth 
going to Nottingham to hear. I had not the advantage of hearing the paper read by 
the author, but I have read it myself with great interest. Of the various topics so ably 
handled by Mr. Ince, many are necessarily such as afford room for differences of opinion, 
and many may be looked upon by him perhaps too exclusively from a Metropolitan 
point of view. 
With your leave, I will proceed now to offer a few remarks on some of the subjects 
treated by Mr. Ince, hoping at least to suggest matter for friendly converse, either at this 
meeting or at a subsequent one. 
According to Mr. luce, our business is more of a trade than a profession. One of Dr. 
