Judgment has to be exercised before enforcing new regulations in order that good and not harm may follow. If a satisfactory substitute be discovered for methods of work injurious to health, then ways and means will be found to make the alteration in the process economically possible. It may, however, demand sacrifice on the part of employers and employed, but the progress is worth the sacrifice. The following are instances of substitution of safe processes for those involving risk: generation of dust can sometimes be avoided by a ‘wet’ method (watering of white lead chambers, grinding pulp lead with oil, damping of smelting mixtures, &c.); the nitrate of silver and ammonia process has replaced the tin and mercury amalgam used in silvering of mirrors; electroplating instead of water gilding (coating objects with mercury amalgam and subsequently volatilising the mercury); enamelling with leadless instead of lead enamels; use of air instead of mercury pumps in producing the vacuum in incandescent electric lamps. Dealing further with the sanitation of the factory and workshop after personal cleanliness, the next most important measure is cleanliness of the workroom and purity of the air. Workrooms should be light and lofty; and have floors constructed of smooth impervious material easily kept clean. The walls should be lime-washed or painted with a white oil paint. Angles and corners which can harbour dirt should be rounded. Cleansing requires to be done as carefully and as often as possible, preferably by washing down or by a vacuum cleaner. Saturation of the floor with dust oil is recommended by some authorities in trades where poisonous dust is developed and is permitted as an alternative to the methods described. I refrain from expressing an opinion on this method of laying dust, since by adoption of the practice insistence on the need for removal of the poisonous material from the workrooms loses its force—a thing, in my opinion, to be deprecated.