The Story of William Hunter

recognition of the value of the microscope). However, these advances only really bore fruit in the 1914 British Pharmacopoeia where, for instance, ash values and the histology of powders were conspicuous for the first time. (That interest in powder histology developed so late despite the early recognition of nefarious practices by the drug grinders is a subject deserving full study.) The 1914 British Pharmacopoeia, it should be added, was so markedly superior to its predecessors that it is perhaps unfortunate that the author has not taken this as a terminal date for his study. It must be remembered that developments in the science of pharmacognosy, as part of the Pharmaceutical Society's enterprises in education, did not affect the average practising pharmacist-or at least most of those who did not attend the Society's school. Nevertheless it is a pity that the role of the average practitioner-medical as well as pharmaceutical-could not have been given more space by Stieb. It would have helped in discussing the extent of adulteration and, in particular, the role of individuals (where only Accum, Hassall, Postgate and Wakley are considered). There was probably much truth in the 1856 statement of the Directors of The General Apothecaries' Company (formed soon after the 1855 Select Committee Report on food and drug adulteration) that 'many pharmaceutical Chemists are better instructed now than formerly, and doubtless a large proportion of them conscientiously endeavour to avoid the sale of spurious and adulterated drugs'. Certainly it seems significant that when chemists and druggists were endeavouring to create an organized profession many were advertising the purity of their drugs. The General Apothecaries' Company, like the older Liverpool Apothecaries' Company (the provinces must not be forgotten), was founded 'for the purpose of securing to the profession and the public a supply of unadulterated drugs and chemicals'. It is interesting that both companies appointed a 'scientific chemist' whose duties included analysis. However, just how successful these enterprises were in terms of the provision of good quality drugs has not been ascertained. Nor has there been an assessment of the role of the pharmaceutical industry in general; there is good reason to believe that some companies at least supplied good quality drugs and chemicals for there were a number of quaker businesses with men of the calibre of the celebrated William Allen. The above comments are not offered as criticism of omissions in the book under review, …