620 
THE BRITISH PHARMACOPCEIA, 1867. 
This work is now ready for circulation, and in a few days, we have no 
doubt, it will be in the hands of most of our readers. Those who have not 
already done so should immediately give the requisite instructions to their 
booksellers, to ensure early supplies. 
We have already stated, in* the notice we gave two months ago of the 
proof copy which was distributed to members of the Medical Council, what 
the general character of the work is, or at least what it was in the form in 
which it was then submitted for examination and approval. Scarcely any 
alteration has since been made in jt, so that our description still applies sub¬ 
stantially. It is published in one size only, that of a post octavo of 458 
pages, the price of which is six shillings. 
There is reason to believe that a very different reception awaits the present 
edition of the British Pharmacopoeia from that which consigned its prede¬ 
cessor to what practically amounted to suppression. It cannot be denied, 
however, that the British Pharmacopoeia of 1864 was, in some respects, an 
improvement upon any previously published Pharmacopoeia; but there were 
several serious errors committed in it, which caused it to be almost entirely 
ignored by the medical profession. 
The ‘ Lancet,’ in a recent notice of the proof copy of the new edition of 
the Pharmacopoeia, says :— 
“ In addition to an entirely new arrangement of the subjects treated of in 
the Pharmacopoeia, an extensive alteration of names, especially of those ap¬ 
plied to drugs derived from vegetable sources, a great accession of medicines 
not noticed in the previous issue of the work, an improved method of 
arranging and describing processes, and indicating in connection with each 
substance all the preparations in which it is used, and in most cases the doses 
in which it is administered,—very important changes have in other respects 
* been made. In almost every page of the work there is evidence of more 
than an ordinary revision of the matter, wLich appears, for the most part, to 
have been re-written. This, indeed, was essential, for^ne of the grave ob¬ 
jections urged against the Pharmacopoeia of 1864 was, that there was a want 
of unity and consistency in it, which was ascribed to the peculiar circum¬ 
stances under which it was produced by three separate committees working 
at great distances from each other, and each representing separate and inde¬ 
pendent interests. In order to remedy the defects arising from this cause, it 
was necessary, not only that processes should be fully and fairly tried, and 
improved if found to be faulty, but that these trials should be made in such 
a way as to supply the requisite information to some one capable of correcting 
or re-writing the descriptions of them. More than two years have been 
occupied by the editors. Professor Redwood and Mr. Warington, in perform¬ 
ing this duty, and if the result of their labours should prove as satisfactory 
to those by whom the Pharmacoj^oeia will be used, as it seems to have been 
to those who have cursorily examined the proof-copy of it, the profession 
will not begrudge the time and money spent in attaining so important an 
object.” 
The ‘ Medical Times and Gazette ’ says :— 
“ All in all, we are much pleased with the proposed Pharmacopoeia. If we 
were to select any one mark whereby to distinguish it from that of 1864, we 
should fix upon its thorough w'orkmanlike character. In every line is ob¬ 
servable the great pains the Committee have been at to please the profession 
at large. Tiie meed of praise they deserve is a great one; we hope it will 
be freely awarded them by the profession.” 
