for it is by no means unusual to find blood in the pulmonary vessels of children which have been born dead without respiring.

We should have scarcely supposed that Dr. Beck would have found it worth his while to argue the question as to whether a child can breathe during birth, while its head is protruding; or to quote authorities in support of a fact with which we presume most professional men must be familiar. We agree with him that the death of a child, under these circumstances from natural causes, is not very probable; and we approve of the judicious summary which he has made of these causes. Still, the medical jurist must remember that a child may perish on such occasions, independently of all criminal violence.

In taking our leave of Dr. Beck, we assure him it is with regret that we have felt ourselves obliged to point out what we consider to be serious errors in his volume. We find ourselves the more imperiously called on to do so, because the Essay on Infanticide, although now separately published, forms a part of his brother's admirable "Elements of Medical Jurisprudence;" a work of most deserved authority, and very extensively circulated among the members of the profession both in this country and America. The great defects, however, of the Essay on Infanticide, are its want of arrangement and its redundancies. By these the author has in a considerable degree destroyed its utility as a practical guide to the medical witness; for it is by this rule, after all, that our author must submit to be tried. That Dr. Beck is a man of most extensive erudition will at once appear from a perusal of his work. He quotes authorities without number from all countries and on all subjects, whether directly or indirectly bearing upon the matter which he is discussing. It is thus, in an earnest endeavour to prevent his work from appearing deficient in facts or reasonings, that he has needlessly burthened it with details which, we are sure, slight reflection would prove to him to be unnecessary.

ART. VII.

1. Pharmacopoeia Collegii Regalis Medicorum Londinensis.-Londini, 1836. 8vo. pp. 208 and xxxii. 32mo. pp. 216 and xxxv. 2. The Translation of the Pharmacopoeia of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 1836. With Notes and Illustrations. By RICHARD PHILLIPS, F.R.S. L. & E. &c; Lecturer on Chemistry at St. Thomas's Hospital. By Permission.-London, 1837. 8vo. pp. 392. 3. The Pharmacopoeia Collegii Regalis Medicorum Londinensis, translated, with a Commentary, chemical, pharmaceutical, and medicinal. By D. SPILLAN, M.D., Fellow of the King and Queen's College of Physicians in Ireland.-London, 1837. 12mo. pp. 308.

4. A Translation of the New Pharmacopoeia of the Royal College of Physicians of London; with Notes and Criticisms. By G. F. COLLIER, M.D., Member of the Royal College of Physicians, &c. &c.—London, 1837. Royal 8vo. pp. 272.

THIS work has been long and anxiously expected by the profession, and by many it has been thought to be too long delayed. The publication

of a Pharmacopoeia, however, by the highest authority, is a serious matter: it signalizes an era, not only in the ancillary sciences of botany and chemistry, but in the practice of physic itself; and we are therefore not among the foremost to complain, if the publication of a formulary, which must be the text-book of fifteen or twenty thousand practitioners, is accompanied rather by an excess than a deficiency of cautious delay. So rapid is now the advance of pharmaceutical and medical knowledge, that, while only three Pharmacopoeia were published during the whole of the last century, namely, in 1720, 1745, and 1787, three have been already issued during the present, namely, in 1809, 1824, and 1836.*

The one before us, although not free from errors and imperfections, is not unworthy of the present state of science, or the character of the learned body from which it has proceeded. We cannot, however, but regret extremely that the design of the London College of compiling a Pharmacopoeia in conjunction with the Colleges of Edinburgh and Dublin, was not accomplished. The negociations set on foot for this purpose were, it seems, begun, but were ultimately broken off, owing chiefly to the mutual distance of the parties. The advantages of a British or national Pharmacopoeia are so obvious, that it is needless to dwell upon them here; but we trust that the time is not far distant when not only this object will be attained, but others of still greater importance, calculated to draw into closer union all the members of our common profession throughout the empire.

Mr. Phillips's Translation is exact, though in some places rather too literal; and the chemical notes which he has appended are excellent. At the request of the College, he "either conducted or inspected the preparation of almost every medicine which has been introduced, and in many cases repeated the processes which the Pharmacopoeia already contained." (Advertisement, p. v.) The nature and object of his remarks are thus stated by himself:

"In preparing the remarks which accompany this Translation, my attention has been directed to two classes of persons:-First, those who may have been for some time engaged in the practice of physic, but who, not having watched the rapid progress which chemistry has made within a few years, are imperfectly acquainted with the important changes which it has produced by the introduction of new medicines from various and unexpected sources. The other class to which I allude is the numerous one of medical students: to these I have found, by no inconsiderable experience, that concise descriptions of the chemical changes which occur during the preparation of medicines have been extremely useful. They who know how small the portion of time is which the medical pupil has at his disposal for the acquirement of chemical

We might have added the one of 1815, which, though commonly reputed a mere reprint of that of 1809, does in reality differ from it, as we shall afterwards have occasion to show; but then the same kind of improved reprints had probably occurred in the last century likewise: thus, Dr. Powell tells us that "it will explain some seeming inaccuracies in the references to the Pharmacopoeia of 1787, if I mention that successive editions have varied somewhat from each other, and that unfortunately they have been confounded together. The quarto and the first duodecimo agree together; an octavo was afterwards published with alterations, and a duodecimo since with more alterations still, and these can only be distinguished by looking for some known point of difference between them in the body of the work." (Translation of the Pharmacopœia of 1809, second edition. Preface, p. xxviii.)

Mr. Phillips always calls it the edition of 1788, instead of 1787; and so does Gray, in his Supplement to the Pharmacopaia. (Fourth edit. 1828.)

and pharmaceutical knowledge, will readily admit the propriety of assisting his progress by familiar modes of illustration. With this latter view, I have made much use of diagrams." (Adv. p. v.)

We wish that, for the sake of students, Mr. Phillips had explained the notation of the chemical symbols which he has adopted from Berzelius, Brande, and Turner.

He has chiefly derived his account of the uses of medicines from Dr. Hue and Dr. Paris; but in this department he is too laconic, and it is to be regretted that those eminent physicians did not contribute to this part of the work on a scale proportioned to its utility. Mr. Phillips's book, however, is one of remarkable merit, and, like his previous ones on the same subject, will be a mine for all subsequent commentators on the Pharmacopoeia.

Dr. Spillan's work constitutes a compendious Dispensatory, not devoid of merit, though, from the extreme haste with which it was brought out, it necessarily contains more errors than it would have done had the author allowed himself a reasonable time for its composition. There is more of chemistry and a good deal less of medicine in it than we anticipated. From a practical physician like Dr. Spillan, we might expect that the remarks on the therapeutical qualities and administration of the different medicines would be fuller than in the work of Mr. Phillips; and, generally speaking, this is the case; yet the difference is less than might have been looked for.

This gentleman seems unfortunate in the circumstances under which he undertakes his literary engagements. It is not long since we found it necessary to criticise his mode of rendering into his native tongue a foreign work of great importance, (See our Review of his Translation of Andral, Vol. I. p. 188;) and he has laid himself open to a like censure, although in a lesser degree, on the present occasion. In both cases, we believe, the defects in his performance have sprung from his having executed his task too hastily; and in neither case, we apprehend, will this be received by the profession as a sufficient excuse. When a medical writer condescends, from the importunities of publishers, or any other considerations extrinsic to science, to come before the public, without regard to the appearance he may make, he has certainly forfeited his claim to the indulgence of critics, at least, if not also of his readers generally.

Dr. Collier's book is on the same general plan, yet considerably different from the other two translations. It is much fuller in its therapeutical details, and much less explicit in its chemical explanations. The translation is correct, though not always very neat; and the pharmaceutical and practical additions are for the most part sensible, and bear the stamp of experience. The volume, however, is greatly disfigured by the general style of the criticisms contained in it. These are throughout marked by an angry and bitter tone, which, to say the least of it, is ungraceful and undignified, and assuredly exposes the author as much as the censors of the College. The advertisement of the original, and its authorized version by Mr. Phillips, was accompanied by an announcement that the College would not permit any other translation. To us it seemed probable that this mistaken notice was to be attributed rather to the publisher than to the College. Dr. Collier, however, thought other

wise, and put forth a facetious pamphlet, in which he overwhelms that learned body with indignant merriment; and not only reproaches them with this their mistake touching the true construction of the Copyright Act, but with all and singular their mistakes from the beginning of time. These subjects, though discussed, were by no means exhausted in the pamphlet, and they are resumed in the work before us. The author tells us, that "he resents the injury the College have inflicted on one who has certain claims on their consideration, which will be understood as well by their fellows as by their licentiates," (p. iv.;) and he concludes his preface with these words "To the Censors he has merely to say, 'Gentlemen, behold the book!' Now, therefore, resist,'-or recant, or retreat, with what silent dignity you may!"

We know not exactly what claims Dr Collier may have on the consideration of the London College, nor the extent of the provocation he has received from it: we do not even deny that many of his criticisms are just in point of fact: it is on the ground of taste and propriety that we blame him, for loading the pages of an elementary didactic work with taunts, reproofs, and recriminations, totally at variance with the character of such a work. When neither too brief nor too wrathful, Dr. Collier is always instructive; and if he will, in his next edition, forego his resentment, and fill up his columns with additional practical matter; and if, at the same time, he lessens his type and page, and consequently his price, we will promise to his work every success. We would also advise him to introduce, like Mr. Phillips, all the old synonymes, a thing absolutely necessary to keep the older practitioners in the right path.

Both Mr. Phillips and Dr. Collier have added a table of doses, which will be useful to young practitioners, many of whom will wish that they had accentuated the words, and thus given the quantities in a double sense. We might find much to say upon this table, by comparing the doses with those given by authors who have extolled a favorite remedy, as in the cases of tartar emetic, carbonate of iron, and alum; but to every thinking reader such reflections will be sufficiently obvious.

In executing our present task, we are not disposed to follow the example of Dr. Collier, although there are not a few faults in the Pharmacopoeia, both of omission and commission, which are very open to criticism. At another time, perhaps, we may advert to these in detail; on this occasion, we wish to confine ourselves chiefly to the making our readers acquainted with the Pharmacopoeia such as it is, and with the principal alterations that have been made in it. We shall, however, as we go along, notice such of the commentaries of the different translators as relate to the action and use of new or important remedies, with the view of giving the article as practical a character as possible.

Weights and Measures. Instead of the wine gallon, the imperial is now to be used; so that the gallon and the pint will be larger, in the proportion of about five to four, (or, more exactly, in the proportion of 277.274 to 231;) but, as the College have now divided the pint into twenty ounces instead of sixteen, the ounce, drachm, and minim will be the same as before, within an insignificant fraction.

After observing, as formerly, that acids, alkalies, &c. should be kept in stoppered glass bottles, they add, that some preparations require the bottles to be black or green.

The saturation of alkalies or acids is to be tested by litmus and turmeric: this improvement is introduced into the formula for Liquor Ammoniæ Acetatis.

Specific gravities are to be taken at 62° instead of 55o of Fahrenheit. Crucibles are to be either Hessian or Cornish.

Nomenclature. The alterations of nomenclature are numerous, but in many cases inevitable. The College having once adopted the plan of giving names supposed to express the chemical nature of substances, it is impossible to retain them when the names have been demonstrated to be erroneous; and it is therefore obvious that such names as Hydrargyri Submurias, Hydrargyri Oxymurias, &c. must be expunged: but we agree with Hufeland, and we believe with the majority of practitioners, that for practical purposes it would be far better to retain the old names, as calomel, corrosive sublimate, &c., which involve no chemical theory, and are therefore not so fleeting as the scientific appellations. For the benefit of those who wish to study chemistry, a Pharmacopoeia should contain the synonymes of the day, but, for the benefit of practical men, it should contain permanent names.

Something similar might be said of the botanical appellations, where, from the perpetual splitting of genera, no name is safe. There is an additional inconvenience attending this shifting nomenclature, as it occasions trouble, and even doubt, to the reader, whenever he turns to the authors of a period wherein names were used which a new Pharmacopoeia has made obsolete.

Materia Medica. In the names of plants, the College chiefly follow Linnæus, Willdenow, and De Candolle, though Don, Smith, Sprengel, and others are often referred to; in those of animal substances, their authority is Cuvier; in chemical names, they follow recent writers, without selecting any one in particular.

The following articles are new; that is, are not in the Materia Medica of the last Pharmacopoeia.

Aconiti radix; Ammonia liquor fortior, (specific gravity .882;) Aurantii flores; Aurantii oleum; Barytæ carbonas; Bergamii oleum, (oil of bergamot;) Brominium; Calcis hydras, (slacked lime;) Calx; Carbo animalis; Chimaphila, (winter-green, or pyrola;) Creasoton; Curcuma, (turmeric;) Diosma, (buchu;) Ergota; Ferri Percyanidum, (percyanide of iron, or Prussian blue;) Hirudo; Iodinium; Lacmus, (litmus;) Lactucarium; Limonum succus; Lini oleum; Lobelia; Manganesii binoxydum; Maranta, (arrow-root;) Nux vomica; Pareira; Phosphorus; Potassæ chloras; Potassi ferrocyanidum; Quina; Sabadilla; Sago; Sodæ acetas; Sodæ phosphas; Sodii chloridum; Spiritus vini Gallici, (brandy;) Vinum Xericum, (sherry.)

We shall confine ourselves to a few observations on these substances. The root of aconite is used in making aconitina.

The stronger solution of ammonia contains about thirty per cent. of ammonia, and is therefore three times as strong as the ordinary solution; it may consequently be reduced to the strength of the Liquor ammoniæ by mixing it with a double quantity of distilled water. In the passage where this fact is stated, there is an erratum of tribus for duabus, at p. 29 of the 8vo, and p. 34 of the 32mo edition. These misprints are not mentioned in the tables of errata. Mr. Phillips has, in like manner,