250     ON  THE  ADULTERATION  OF  PRECIPITATED  SULPHUR. 
to  precipitated  sulphur,  but,  nevertheless,  when  the  fact  of  the  former 
preparation,  containing  a  large  quantity  of  sulphate  of  lime,  was  brought 
forward  as  an  imputation  on  pharmaceutists  for  selling  an  adulterated 
article,  he  must  take  exception  to  the  charge,  and  say  that  he  did  not 
admit  it  to  be  an  adulteration.  As  stated  by  Mr.  Hanbury,  the  only 
officinal  process  for  making  milk  of  sulphur  was  given  in  the  London 
Pharmacopoeia  of  1721,  and  practically  produced  a  mixture  of  sulphate 
of  lime  and  sulphur,  which  was  obtained  by  precipitating  with  sulphuric 
acid  and  a  sulphide  of  calcium.  It  was  quite  possible,  but  by  no  means 
certain,  that  pure  sulphur  would  answer  the  desired  purpose  better. 
As  he  had  stated,  with  reference  to  some  other  preparations,  it  was 
sometimes  found  that  an  admixture  of  foreign  matter,  so  far  from  injuring 
the  action  of  a  remedy,  promoted  its  efficacy.  This  was  said  to  be  so 
with  reference  to  the  action  of  the  resin  of  jalap  and  other  medicinal 
substances ;  the  intermixture  of  some  inert  material  promoted  the  action 
of  the  medicine  in  certain  cases ;  in  what  way  he  would  not  undertake  to 
say,  perhaps  by  merely  separating  the  particles.  At  any  rate  they  should 
be  careful  how  they  too  strongly  condemned  a  preparation,  merely  on  the 
ground  stated  in  this  case,  when  it  was  well  known  and  had  been  long 
used  by  the  public.  They  had  been  accustomed  to  take  a  certain  quan- 
tity of  milk  of  sulphur,  and  to  expect  a  certain  action  from  it.  It  mixed 
with  liquids  much  better  than  precipitated  sulphur  did,  and  he  believed 
a  large  number  of  the  public,  for  this  and  other  reasons,  liked  it  better. 
He  did  not  advocate  the  use  of  milk  of  sulphur,  much  less  the  substitu- 
tion of  it  for  precipitated  sulphur,  for  milk  of  sulphur  was  one  thing  and 
precipitated  sulphur  another.  If  any  one  supplied  the  former  in  the 
place  of  precipitated  or  sublimed  sulphur,  they  would  act  very  wrongly ; 
but  when  they  were  asked  for  milk  of  sulphur,  he  could  not  see  that  they 
were  to  blame  for  supplying  it,  and,  in  many  cases,  if  pure  sulphur  were 
substituted,  he  did  not  think  the  public  would  be  satisfied. 
Mr.  Bland  said  this  subject  had  been  discussed  many  years  ago,  and, 
as  the  result,  he  obtained  some  pure  precipitated  sulphur  and  retailed  it, 
and  the  consequence  was  an  almost  universal  complaint.  Pure  precipi- 
tated sulphur  was  with  great  difficulty  miscible  in  water  or  any  aqueous 
vehicle,  which  caused  great  complaint.  Like  many  others,  he  had  been 
obliged  to  fall  back  on  the  old  preparation  simply  in  self-defence. 
Mr.  Hills  was  surprised  to  hear  Dr.  Redwood  advocate  milk  of  sul- 
phur as  a  genuine  preparation.  He  would  remind  him  that  by  the  New 
Pharmacy  Act  those  who  sold  adulterated  articles  were  liable  to  a  fine. 
Dr.  Redwood  considered  that  milk  of  sulphur,  as  usually  sold,  was  not 
an  adulteration. 
Mr.  Hills  said  he  did  not  feel  at  all  sure  of  that,  himself. 
Mr.  Morson  said  milk  of  sulphur  did  not  profess  to  be  pure  sulphur. 
Dr.  Attfield  was  astonished  to  find  any  one  connected  with  that  So- 
ciety sheltering  themselves  in  the  matter  of  adulteration  behind  either 
