The replies are as follow: "14, Saville Row, March 25, 1851. "MY DEAR SIR,-I do not understand on what grounds it can be supposed that you have transgressed the most strict rules of professional etiquette and propriety, in publishing an account of the case which you have mentioned. In fact, the patient was more yours than Mr Syme's; but even if it had been otherwise, I hold that no information which tends to illustrate any important point in surgical practice should be withheld from the profession.—I am, dear Sir, yours very truly, "B. C. BRODIE. "Professor Miller." “Dublin, April 2, 1851. "MY DEAR PROFESSOR MILLER,-I have, as you desired, read your paper on 'the treatment of stricture of the urethra' with great care; and I am bound to say that, while I found much to commend, I found nothing in it that could give just cause of offence, or that at all transgressed the rules of professional etiquette and propriety. "I collect, however, from your letter, that it is not the paper itself, but its publication, which has given the offence. "Now it appears to me, that a case which, from its commencement to its termination, has been under your especial care, may (professionally speaking) be strictly considered as your case; and the incident of an operation having been performed in the course of it by Mr Syme, at your instance, and in your presence, in no degree transfers the responsibility of the case from you to him. "If this be the case, it must, I think, be conceded, that you had a perfect right to bring the case under the notice of the Medico-Chirurgical Society; and if your intention of so doing was intimated (as it appears to have been *) to Mr Syme, by the Society's circular, I think all the claims of professional etiquette, and even of courtesy, were fully satisfied.-Believe me, my dear Professor, very faithfully yours, "PHILIP CRAMPTON. "Professor Miller." But one other circumstance seems to require notice. Mr Syme has alluded to my having "met with some " impermeable strictures in hospital practice; in regard to which he indulges in the following remarkable observation,-" If, instead of resorting to extreme measures, he had tested my power to deal with them as permeable," " &c. These cases were but two. The one, that which has been already narrated, as to the nature of which Mr Syme and myself were mistaken; and, in the belief that the perineal swelling and obstruction were caused by urethral calculus, excision was determined on. The other was a case of tight stricture, in which the crisis of retention occurred. I was summoned to the hospital at 1 The paper in the "Lancet," March 22.-J. M. My notice in the circular embraced only my own case of operation, by the old method, as has already been stated. But it must, under any circumstances, have surely occurred to Mr Syme, that if I read a paper on "Perineal Section' at all, I would not fail in the course of it to allude also to the case in question. And, in point of fact, as I have formerly observed, Mr Syme did apparently understand my "6 case of perineal section," announced in the circular, to mean that case which he calls "one of his own."-J. M. 3 Monthly Journal, April, p. 336. midnight, after my clerk had failed in all attempts at relief. There was no time for delay, even if--reposing the same confidence in Mr Syme's manipulative skill which he himself seems to do—I had thought of sending for him, in his distant dwelling, at that unseasonable hour; and having been foiled in the use of the catheter, I was constrained in prudence to puncture the bladder. Having now disposed of the personal charges adduced against me, I refrain, at present, from noticing the many points of Mr Syme's paper, which invite criticism in a surgical point of view; not without expressing the hope, however, that on some future occasion I may not be debarred from entering on a fair discussion of these, or any other professional matters, without thereby incurring the risk of having again to disencumber myself of what is gratuitously personal and offensive. #1 Part Second. REVIEWS. Pharmacopoeia Collegii Regalis Medicorum Londinensis. 1851. THE appearance of a new London Pharmacopoeia, and the recent publication of one in Dublin, are fresh barriers raised against the fulfilment of the hope long cherished and not yet abandoned by us, of seeing, sometime in our lives, a pharmacopoeia for the United Kingdom. Some fifteen years ago, we had hoped that this would be accomplished by a voluntary act of the English, Irish, and Scotch Colleges of Physicians, but this we have long since given up as desperate. These learned bodies are too far separated, and have too little communication with each other, to render it likely that they will spontaneously undertake what must of necessity be a laborious, and also, to some extent, an expensive business; and therefore, although we believe that there is no aversion on the part of the colleges generally to such a measure, we do not expect to see it accomplished until the legislature or the government order it to be done. And we believe that at least a good opportunity for doing so will present itself ere long. Whatever be the result of the still unsettled question of medical reform in relation to existing medical corporations, the chemists and druggists must, we apprehend, soon be NEW SERIES.-NO. XVII. MAY 1851. 30 provided for in some way or other by act of Parliament. We trust that it will be on the broad principle of equality of education, of privilege, and of responsibility, throughout the whole United Kingdom. With these, let there be uniformity in the duties required of them; let them not have three separate pharmacopoeias to study; let there be one code for their guidance, and thus the same knowledge and experience, which will make a druggist good for London, will fit him equally for Dublin or Edinburgh. We truly believe that we do not exaggerate when we affirm that the existence of three pharmacopoeias in Britain has exerted an injurious effect on the progress of pharmaceutical science in this country. Our druggists are too much taken up with the study of details to have time for the mastering of general principles. It will not do for an Edinburgh druggist to know merely the indigenous formulary; he must know those of London and Dublin also. English and Irish prescriptions come to be dispensed in Edinburgh; Scotch ones in London and Dublin. A druggist, who forgets that within the shores of Britain two names may belong to the same preparation, or two preparations may be known by the same name,1 may give to a purchaser, who comes with a prescription from the other side of the Tweed, an article quite different from what the said physic-taker has been used to, and yet may have made up the prescription quite according to (his own) rule. The purchaser is disappointed, perhaps alarmed, when he swallows the first dose of what he thinks to be "the wrong physic;" he frequents this shop no more, and probably denounces it as untrustworthy. The druggist knows that he is exposed to this mischance; to avoid this, he conns over the triplicate pharmacopoeia, generally using a dispensatory, or some book where all three are collected together, in preference to the pharmacopoeias themselves; he becomes, after a sort of empirical fashion, learned in minute details, whilst the scientific principles which ought to regulate his whole proceedings are left comparatively unheeded, and of course go to the wall. Had our rising pharmaceutists fewer formula to learn by rote, they would have more time and zeal for studying their important profession scientifically. Nor do we see that there should be much difficulty in the way 1 Spiritus ammonia aromaticus is an example. In Edinburgh, this means a spirit flavoured with the oils of lemon and rosemary, containing per fluid ounce about 20 grains of ammonia in the caustic state. In London, it means a fluid flavoured with lemon, clove, and cinnamon, containing per fluid ounce about 8 grains of ammonia in the state of carbonate. It means yet a third thing in Dublin, being there a fluid flavoured with lemon, nutmeg, and cinnamon, containing per ounce about 8 grains of ammonia in the caustic state. We have known flatulent ladies from London much astounded by the superior potency of the Sal-volatile in Edinburgh, and heard them blame London druggists for making it badly. The fault lies, not with the druggist, but with the College of Physicians, who order him to keep an article of very inefficient character. of a national pharmacopoeia, if it were only set about in an earnest and cordial spirit. If a few general principles were established by one or two meetings of a deputation from each of the Colleges, the adjustment of the mighty conflicting claims of individual pills and mixtures could easily be settled by correspondence. These general principles, however, must be agreed upon in limine; and it is precisely upon some of these that the greatest differences exist among our three pharmacopoeias. We purpose, therefore, in the present notice, to direct attention to one or two of these points, taking, as the text for our remarks, the preface of the work now before us. But ere we go further, we feel bound to say, that so far as we have yet seen what is in the new London Pharmacopoeia, we have to congratulate the College from which it emanates on an evident improvement on their last production. We do not by this pledge ourselves to a general approval of the details ;-a pharmacopoeia is to be judged of not by a mere perusal, but by trial; but in many points, especially the list of the Materia Medica, there are evident signs of a more careful hand having been applied to the work than there was in 1836. The points which we apprehend require to be settled before we can hope to see the construction of a national pharmacopoeia entered on, may, we think, be pretty nearly comprehended under the following questions: 1st. What ought a pharmacopoeia to contain? Is it to be merely a receipt-book for facilitating the writing and dispensing of prescriptions? or is it to be a guide for directing towards the right procuring or preparing, as the case may be, of the natural or artificial productions which are to be dispensed? 2d. In what form, as regards language and nomenclature, is it to appear? 3d. Of what authority is it to be? 1st. What ought a pharmacopoeia to contain? We need hardly remind our readers that a pharmacopoeia consists of two parts,-1st, A list of the Materia Medica-i.e., a welldefined catalogue of substances furnished by commerce or manufacture, which are thought to be essential for the medical service of the country. 2d. A formulary containing recipes for making from these articles of the Materia Medica certain preparations of acknowledged utility. Now the question at issue respecting these two parts of the book is, How much is to go into the first and how much into the second part? Natural productions, whether indigenous or foreign, such as leaves, roots, barks, resins, of necessity go into the first part, and along with these certain manufactured articles, which are never prepared except upon the large scale, such as the carbonates of soda and potash, sulphuric acid, &c. These are thus said to be articles of the Materia Medica; and the druggist obtains his supplies from the wholesale merchant. In the second part of the pharmacopoeia are placed those preparations and compounds which it is the special business of the dispensing druggist to prepare, such as pills, tinctures, infusions, &c. So far there is no dispute; but there is a numerous and generally very important class of preparations which the ordinary retail druggist and the surgeon-apothecary are, or at least should be, perfectly competent to prepare for themselves, but which, nevertheless, they find it more economical, and in every respect better, rather to obtain by purchase from the manufacturing chemist. Such are the vegetable alkalies and their salts, and many metallic compounds, as calomel, red oxide of iron, white bismuth, &c.; and with regard to these, the views of the three Colleges are all at variance, as the following extracts from their respective prefaces will show. The following are the London ideas on this subject : "Id imprimis notandum est, ut in priorem ejus partem (viz., the list of the Materia Medica) multa retulimus medicamenta, quæ olim in secundam partem (preparations and compounds) relata erant. Quippe haud iniquum fore arbitrati sumus, ut si quæ sint apud mercatores chemicos accuratissme et limatissime praeparata, ea quidem enumeremus potius et describamus, quam quâ quæque ratione et quibus modis preparanda sint exponamus; utpote quæ nostris usibus eousque inserviunt ut eadem a nobismetipsis preparari minime necesse sit.”— Praefatio, Phar. Lond., 1851. The Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia, however, takes a different view of the question. "It has occurred to the College that, as the chemical preparations now in use are prepared in the present day, not by practitioners or druggists, but in a great measure by chemical manufacturers, who will scarcely be guided by colleges in their processes, a considerable proportion of the chemical formulæ might have been omitted without injury. On the whole, however, it has been thought advisable to put it in the power of every medical man to prepare his own chemical compounds if he chooses; and with that view we have taken care to select those processes which are the most simple and the most certain, though they may not be always either the cheapest or the most productive.”—Preface, Ed. Pharm., 1836 and 1841. The Dublin College advocates and follows the same practice as that of Edinburgh, but on somewhat different grounds. "And here it will be proper to observe, that formulæ are given for the preparation of numerous medicines, which are at present seldom made by the apothecary, being fabricated on the great scale by the manufacturing chemist. This is the course adopted by the College in the pharmacopoeia of 1826, and it is one which should not be lightly abandoned; for he who occasionally manufactures his own chemicals, will obviously be the best judge of the quality of those which he purchases, and will be possessed of standards of comparison by which the numerous frauds and adulterations at present practised will be most readily and certainly detected."-Preface, Dublin Pharm., 1850. We at once avow our hostility to the course adopted by the London College, and think with the two other learned bodies, that formulæ for these preparations ought to be given, and that they ought not to be disposed of by making them mere articles of the Materia Medica. It is true, that it is perhaps better to have no |