ON  THE  ADULTERATION  OF  PRECIPITATED  SULPHUR.  251 
custom  or  an  old  Pharmacopoeia.  The  public  knew  nothing  about  the 
old  Pharmacopoeia,  or  how  the  article  was  made,  or  what  it  was  pro- 
fessed to  be  ;  if  they  asked  for  sulphur  they  expected  to  get  sulphur. 
"  Milk  of  Sulphur  "  was  simply  the  popular  name  for  the  official  prepara- 
tion, 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  consider- 
ably less  than  half  was  sulphur.  He  maintained,  as  a  matter  of  common 
sense,  that  an  article  which  contained  two-thirds  of  its  weight  of  impur- 
ity 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,  no- 
thing 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  pre- 
cipitated 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  Pharmaco- 
poeia which  contained  something  more  than  was  expressed  by  the  name 
it  bare,  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  definite  ;  but,  as  he  had  before  remarked,  there  were  practical  diffi- 
culties 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  accus- 
tomed 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. 
