498 
Pharmacopoeia  Revision. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
Oct.,  1881. 
rience  the  necessary  skill  for  advancing  his  art.  The  Pharmaceutical 
Society  immediately  after  its  incorporation  set  to  work  to  educate  and 
promote  education  in  the  general  body.  After  nearly  forty  years  of 
active  exertion,  it  has  succeeded  in  rearing  a  class  of  men  who  com- 
pare favorably  with  their  Continental  and  American  brethren  in  their 
knowledge  of  the  science  and  art  of  pharmacy.  The  more  active  and 
experienced  of  the  founders,  not  content  with  fostering  education 
alone,  occupied  tliemselves  in  improving  the  existing  processes,  and 
devising  new  and  improved  forraulse  for  pharmaceutical  preparations. 
One  of  the  most  active  in  this  respect  was  Mr.  Peter  Squire,  who,  by 
the  publication  of  his  comparison  of  the  three  Pharmacopoeias  of  Lon- 
don, Edinburgh  and  Dublin,  and  his  practical  work  in  pharmaceutical 
research,  contributed  more  than  any  other  man  to  pave  the  way  for 
the  fusion  of  those  pharmacopoeias  into  one  national  volume.  Other 
pharmacists  also  assisted,  but  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  Mr. 
Squire  and  his  fellow  workers  in  pharmacy  prepared  the  materials  for 
the  first  British  Pharmacopoeia. 
The  first  British  Pharmacopoeia  appeared  in  1864,  and  was  issued 
under  the  authority  of  the  Medical  Council,  a  body  created  by  the 
Medical  Act  of  1858.  Owing  to  the  difficulties  of  reducing  to  one 
standard  the  processes  and  descrij)tions  of  three  different  pharmaco- 
poeias, and  of  recognizing  the  varying  usages  in  pharmacy,  and  pre- 
scriptions of  the  people  of  three  countries  hitherto  in  these  respects 
separate  and  independent,  it  was  not  a  satisfactory  Avork.  In  1867 
ap])eared  a  new  edition,  which,  with  the  Additions,'^  published  in 
1874,  forms  the  existing  British  Pharmacopana.  Modeled  on  the 
United  States  Pharmacopoeia,  this  is  a  decided  advance  on  all  pre- 
vious works  of  the  kind  published  in  this  country,  and  the  improve- 
ment is  to  be  attributed  to  the  large  pharmaceutical  experience  and 
knowledge  of  the  editor. 
The  question  as  to  how  often  a  new  edition  is  called  for  must  neces- 
sarily be  viewed  differently  by  the  medical  man  and  pharmacist.  The 
public  officials  connected  with  the  administration  of  the  "  ^ale  of  Food 
and  Drugs  AcV^  in  this  country  regard  the  pharmacopoeia  as  the 
standard,  in  respect  of  purity  and  strength,  for  many  preparations 
used  in  medicine.  It  is,  therefore,  very  important  to  the  pharmacist 
that  the  information  contained  in  each  edition  should  be  of  compara- 
tively recent  date.  Ten  years  is  a  sufficiently  long  interval,  and  if  the 
chemical  nomenclature  is  not  altered  each  time  (and  it  need  not  be),  I 
do  not  see  that  decennial  issues  would  entail  any  inconvenience  on  the 
medical  profession. 
In  conclusion,  I  hope  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  useful- 
ness of  pharmacists,  in  the  construction  of  a  British  Pharmacopoeia, 
will  be  recognized  and  appreciated  to  the  same  extent  as  in  other 
countries.  The  medical  profession  and  the  public  will  both  gain  by 
the  result. — Pharm.  Jour,  and  Trans.,  August  6,  1881. 
