474 
PHARMACEUTICAL MEETING. 
popular name for the official preparation, and he was quite sure that purchasers, 
in using that name, did not know they were liable to be supplied with an article 
of which considerably less than half was sulphur. He maintained, as a matter 
of common sense, that an article which contained two-thirds of its weight of 
impurity was scandalously adulterated. 
Mr. Hooker said that when he started in business some years ago as chemist 
in a provincial town, he determined to sell only pure drugs, and, accordingly, 
procured pure precipitated sulphur, which he attempted to sell instead of milk 
of sulphur. Some of his best customers, however, refused to have it, saying they 
had always been accustomed to get a good article, and did not like to have 
anything different. It was in vain for him to explain the case to them, and at 
last he was compelled to revert to the old-fashioned article. He should like 
to know what a druggist ought to do under such circumstances. 
Mr. Hills said that in the establishment which he represented, nothing but 
pure precipitated sulphur was sold, and he would rather sell none at all than 
supply an adulterated article. 
Dr. Redwood said that principle was quite correct if they sold it under the 
name of precipitated sulphur, but what he contended for was, that the two 
things were quite different. Milk of sulphur was sulphur precipitated with 
sulphate of lime, according to the process originally given in the Pharmacopoeia ; 
it had long been in general use, and he did not consider it was any adulteration 
whatever to sell under its distinctive name a preparation which had been found 
advantageous. With the same reason, they might complain of any preparation 
in the Pharmacopoeia which contained something more than was expressed by 
the name it bore, as an adulteration. For instance, tincture of senna contained 
something besides senna, but it could not be considered an adulteration. 
Dr. Attfield asked, if milk of sulphur was a good preparation, why was not 
the process given for it in the London Pharmacopoeia retained in the present one? 
Dr. Redwood said he did not advocate the use of milk of sulphur, and 
should be glad to see it superseded by precipitated sulphur, which was more de¬ 
finite ; but, as he had before remarked, there were practical difficulties in the 
way. One was the greater facility there was in mixing milk of sulphur with 
water, and he had been told, although he was not prepared to vouch for the 
accuracy of the statement, that those accustomed to take milk of sulphur found 
that it possessed greater efficacy, as a medicine, than pure sulphur without the 
addition of any sulphate of lime. At any rate, he had not medical authority 
to repudiate such a statement. 
Mr. Wood said he had frequently taken milk of sulphur, but could not take 
precipitated sulphur. 
Mr. Martindale said the process was first introduced in the London Phar¬ 
macopoeia in 1721, and the preparation was there called lac sulphuris , which 
name had ever since been retained for that particular preparation. 
Mr. Hanbury thought, in the Pharmacopoeia in which it was ordered, the 
process was given in ignorance. He was far from advocating the use of this 
calcareous sulphur, which he considered an abomination, and did not think there 
could be so much difficulty in introducing a pure article as some gentlemen 
seemed to suppose. In the house in which he was a partner, there had not been 
any so-called milk of sulphur for a long time. They always used pure sulphur, 
and never found any complaint. 
A Member said when a customer went to a chemist he trusted to him to 
supply him with a pure article ; he did not know the difference between milk 
of sulphur and pure sulphur. 
The Chairman thought the public judged in such matters very much by 
what they had been accustomed to receive, and if they had been used to an im¬ 
pure article, they would prefer it to the genuine. 
