196

INSANITY.—NOTE FROM MR. WHITEMAN.

To the Editor.—SIR: I have just had my attention directed toyour editorial remarks upon the controversy between Mr. Shep-pard and myself, and since it has become manifest that invectivemay take the place of philosophic argument in support of thetheory of Mr. Sheppard, I not only applaud your judgment, butmost willingly bow to your decision.You must allow me, however, very briefly to call your attention

to a slight mistake into which you have fallen, in supposing meto be either the originator or the promulgator of a theory as to theproximate cause of insanity.

So far from having urged anything against that crude hypo-thesis, that was not founded upon well-known pathological data,I have been most careful to withhold all speculations of my own,but such as could be borne out, in every respect, by the recordedopinions of the first pathologists of this and other countries. Imust also beg to remind you, that it is not to me that belongsthat singular theory which repudiates the immediate connexion ofthe brain with the production of all mental, albeit insane mani-festations ! I have not asserted anything half so presumptuous asthat the symptoms of insanity can have no possible dependenceupon disease of the brain! or of recording anything so contra-dictory as that a " demonstrated problem" means, in the mindof its demonstrator, nothing more than " a theoretical and

speculative opinion" !!If it be a manifestation of ignorance, as your correspondent

says it is, (see Mr. Sheppard’s letter, LANCET, Dec. 28, 1844,) tohold opinions upon insanity in common with such men as Georget,Parchappe, Ferrus, Guislain, Foville, Arnold, Davidson, Arm-strong, Haslam, Critchton, Gall, Morison, Burrows, and a hostof others of equal authority upon diseases of the mind, then, Imust say that 1 rather rejoice than otherwise at my deficiency ofknowledge.

Since the appearance in THE LANCET, of the first of the seriesof lectures of M. Baillarger, and the promise of others upon thesame subject from our distinguished countryman, Dr. Conolly, Ihave less desire than ever to continue the discussion with yourcorrespondent, being quite confident, that as the opinions of thesetwo eminent physicians become developed in your pages, so willthe hypothesis which I have combatted receive that "heavy blowand great discouragement" which shall at once put an end to thehallucination. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

ROBERT H. WHITEMAN.Hatcham, Kent-road, January 30, 1845.

USE OF THE LIQUOR PLUMBI DIACETATISIN DISEASES OF THE EYE.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Permit me to appeal to your usual candour, by request-ing the insertion of a few remarks on the following passage inyour 13th number of THE LANCET, December 21st, being partof a review on a work I have lately published, entitled " APractical Treatise on Diseases of the Eye :"-

" We had thought that every well-informed surgeon was bythis time aware of the fact, that when a soluble salt of lead is

dropped into the eye, an insoluble white chloride of that metal isimmediately formed, which is exceedingly apt to get entangledin any ulceration that may exist on the cornea, giving rise to an

indelible white cicatrix; indeed, saturnine preparations of all,kindsought on this account to be banished from ophthalmic surgery."

In a review of the same work in the British and Foreign Me-dical Journal the same observation is made in very similar terms.

In justice to myself, and for the sake of practical surgery, Icannot allow these observations to pass unnoticed in two suchinfluential reviews as your own and Dr. Forbes’s;—in justice tomyself, because it must seem preposterous that after five-and-twenty years’ experience of no ordinary extent, I should gravelyrecommend the use of a remedy which I have myself had re-course to in many thousands of instances ot ulcers of the cornea,strumous ophthalmia, &c. (of which the case, page 120 of mywork, is an example,) if its employment had been attended withthe serious risks you have described; and for the sake of prac-tical surgery, because I should lament to see a useful remedyentirely abandoned. How often do we find, on mere authority,a useless remedy egregiously extolled, or a valuable one laidaside, regardless of that practical evidence of its worth which isvaluable in proportion to the opportunities of testing it.

I will not deny having seen some very few examples, similarto those you have described; I believe, nevertheless, that suchoccurrences would probably never happen with proper precau-tion. The liquid should be used in a purely limpid state, andthe quill, the most convenient instrument for dropping it into the

ROBERT H. WHITEMAN.

eye, should be perfectly clean; for if frequently used, andallowed to dry with the solution upon it, an incrustation of leadis formed, which is brittle, and breaks off in small particles: inlike manner it forms round the neck of the bottle in which it iscontained. Should such particles be floating in the liquid theywould be liable to become entangled in an ulcer; it is necessaryto obviate this by filtering the liquid, when at all turbid, throughblotting-paper. I consider that great precaution is necessary, onthe part of the medical attendant, to watch the effects of thesedrops; should the slightest deposition be observable after anyone application, the medicine should be discontinued, otherwiselayer after layer of fresh deposition would be decidedly inju.rious. Dr. Jacobs, in the fifth volume of the " Dublin HospitalReports," gives some drawings to elucidate the occasional effectsboth of this application and that of the argenti nitratis; but ascompared with anything I have ever witnessed, they are greatlyexaggerated. He also states that such results sometimes occurafter the first application.With the above precautions I believe that any risk of incon-

venience from the use of the solution of lead will be far over.balanced by its advantages, and I can decidedly assert that nopermanent or serious injury has been effected by its first appli-cation within my own experience.

I cannot conclude without one or two remarks of a more gene-ral character. My book was never intended as a text-book forstudents, and cannot therefore be fairly criticised as such, as ithas been by some of my reviewers. I would beg distinctly tostate, what I have already done in my Preface, that I have wishedto advocate such practical measures as I have myself learnt bylong and extensive experience, and to modify the more severeforms of treatment. Difference of opinion I was, of course, pre.pared to meet with; nor would I for a moment discourteouslycall into question the authority of my reviewers; but I wouldclaim, in return,’courtesy and straightforwardness in opposing myopinions: this, I am happy to say, I have found in TIlE LANCET,and Dr. Forbes’s Journal, &c. : but there is one medical journal ofwhich, I regret to say, I cannot speak in equally high terms-the Medico-Chirurgical. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

W--4. JEAFFRESON.South Audley-street, Jan. 6, 1845.

WM. JEAFFRESON.

NEWS OF THE WEEK.

MR. ATTENBURROW’S EMPLOYMENT OF MESMERISM.- To the Editor.—Sir: I feel obliged by your insertion of mynote of last week in THE LANCET. On re-perusing it, I think itmay be construed into a denial of my use of mesmerism, andwish such a misunderstanding to be corrected. I have often madeuse of, and still continue to employ, mesmerism for the removalof severe pain, if the patient wishes, and I deem it advisable, or ofprobable benefit. Trusting you will give admission to these fewwords, I am, Sir, yours very truly,Nottingham, Feb. 12, 1845. H. C. ATTENBURROW.

*** We observed that Mr. Attenburrow did not deny that heemployed " mesmerism’’ as an agent in his treatment of disease;but as the statements to which he referred were published withoutthe name of their author, we allowed the note of Mr. Attenburrowto be inserted without editorial comment. Many persons, how-ever, must, as Mr. Attenburrow supposes, have considered thatthe writer intended to deny his use of "mesmerism" in practice.His present note, therefore, is a very proper appendage to theformer communication. Before quitting the subject, however, wethink it right to print here the following extract from a letterwhich accompanied the statement, at page 140, so peremptorilyimpeached by Mr. Attenburrow :-

" I send you my name, in confidence, with the accompanyingcommunication, and can bear testimony to its correctness, as Ihad all the facts from a particular friend, who well knows mostof the branches of the family, and had them from the relations:’

This declaration was supported by the names and addresses oftwo most respectable gentlemen, on the faith of whose assertionthe article was published.DEATH OF A SURGEON FROM PRUSSIC ACID.-

A lamentable occurrence took place at Stratton, near Cirencester,on Thursday, the 23rd ult., whereby Mr. Daniel Stuart Holmes,one of the surgeons to the union, came to an untimely end,from accidentally taking an overdose of prussic acid. Aninquest was held before Mr. Ball, on Friday. The particularsare as follow:-Mr. Holmes left his house on horseback,on the afternoon of Wednesday, on professional business.At about four, he returned, went into the house, and com-

plained of being much fatigued. After some cheerful conver-

197

sation, he expressed a wish to be left alone, as he was sleepyHis brother, Mr. James Holmes, and deceased, had some conver-sation on their professional business, and he was then, at his ownrequest, left to his repose till about six o’clock. His servantsaid he was then sitting in his chair, leaning back, and did notseem well. She said, " You had better go to bed. As I left theroom, I saw him go out of the opposite door to that at which Iwas leaving, into the surgery. I returned almost immediately,and as I came into the room, I heard a noise as if he were sick;at the same time I heard something drop to the ground. Thatwas the bottle now produced. I looked towards deceased, andsaw him falling. He put his arms out to save himself. He fellrather forward. I ran to deceased, and lifted him up, andfetched a jug of water, of which I poured some down his throat,and threw some over his face. I then told the boy to runto Mr. James Holmes, and fetch him, as he had gone out. Hecame home immediately. This was ten minutes from the timeof deceased falling. He gave him an emetic. Deceased’s pulsewas then hardly perceptible. As soon as the boy had returnedfrom calling Mr. James Holmes, I sent him to Cirencester forDr. Kenneir, but deceased was dead before he could get there."He breathed his last about twenty minutes or half an hour afterhis housekeeper heard him fall to the ground. The bottle waslabelled, " Hydrocyanic acid, of Scheele’s strength. Minor dose,one drop." The bottle was a little less than half full when pickedup. It would have held half an ounce more. The cork was in.Mr. Holmes had killed a cat with a little of it a short time before.She did not know if he had been in the habit of taking any of ithimself. Mr. James Holmes said his brother occasionally com-plained of a pain in his head, and occasionally in his right side.He had also a slight cough. He took medicine every week.

Frequently, when he had complained of pain, he had seen himtake a little prussic acid by touching his tongue with the cork ofthat bottle. About six months ago deceased had been heard

jocularly to remark upon the strength of the dose he had taken,as it had made him giddy. He was as cheerful as he had everbeen in his life on the evening of his death. Dr. Kenneir andMr. Pooley were requested to make a post-mortem examinationof the body. They had no doubt deceased died from takingprussic acid. The remedies administered were brandy andammonia. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a

verdict to the effect, " that deceased had died from accidentallytaking an overdose of prussic acid."- W:7ts and Gloucester shireStandard.

WHAT BECOMES OF THE COCCULUS INDICUS.—Thereis annually imported into England a very large quantity (a goodmany years ago, and before the Beer Act was passed, which in-creased the importation, it amounted to many tons weight) ofthe fruit or berries of the plant Cocculus Indicus, (properly theMenispermum Cocculus,) a narcotic, acrid poison, which is notused by the apothecary, neither, I believe, in manufactures, andis virtuously disowned by the brewers, large and small. Whatbecomes, then, of this large annual importation of a vegetablepoison? Nobody will acknowledge its employment, unless, it istrue, the druggist, who does sell it occasionally, in pennyworths,to the idle and mischievous, for the purpose of poisoning fishes.Is not this circumstance, alone, of its being so universally dis-owned, suspicious ? Experiment proves, that the CocculusIndicus berries produce effects on the sensorium, exactly ana-logous to those of the variety of strong ales, porter, and beer, inproportion to their degree of potency, rapidly inducing headsymptoms, giddiness, intoxication, ringing in the ears, dull stupor,followed by severe headach, oppressive nausea, and (if pushed toexcess on the lower animals) convulsions and death. Thecoincidence is remarkable.—The Beer Houses of England, by aMedical Practitioner.

ONE OF THE TAXES ON HEALTH.-Questions havenaturally enough been started lately, as to what the premier shoulddo in the existing circumstances of the country. The " farmers’friends " recommend the repeal of the malt tax; others desi-derate the abolition or alteration of the window tax; others sug-gest a revision of the duties upon tea, sugar, coffee, tobacco, &c.,and others are earnest in advocating the repeal of the incometax. As to the tax upon windows. Next to plenty of plain food,pure air and pure water are among the greatest physical bless-ings—especially the former. But it is found that ventilation is

impeded, cheerfulness destroyed, energy diminished, and lifeshortened, by the absence of means for procuring a due supply ofnatural light. The present window duties are exceedingly mis-chievous in this respect. They are also assessed on a very unfairprinciple. It is found that the larger the number of windowthere are in a house, the less, in proportion, is the amount of duty.The more unable a man is to pay tax, the more he is taxed.Besides, there is no difference, in the levying of the tax, between

a large and a small window, excepting in a few peculiar circum-stances. A window of twelve panes, glazed with ordinary crownglass at Is. 6d. a pane, and worth therefore but 18s., is chargedthe same duty as a window with the same number of panes ofplate glass, and worth thirty guineas. The duty in the first casemay be as high as thirty per cent., and in the latter little more than.one per cent. As the panes in the latter case will be at least.double the size of those in the former, and of course afford doublethe light, or be as good as two windows, the tax. put in this shape,.will be reduced one-half. On an average, the window-tax of thearistocracy is computed at one-fourth part of what is paid by themiddle classes of society.-Leicester Chronicle.DEPUTATION TO MR. G. PALMER, M.P. (ESSEX.)

i -On Saturday, a deputation from the Essex Medical Reform As-sociation, consisting of Dr. Rowe, of Chigwell; M. H. Cary,Esq., of Woodford; 1. S. Dobson, and F. Haylock, Esqrs., ofHarlow, surgeons; attended, by appointment, upon G. Palmer,Esq., M.P. for South Essex, at his seat, Nazing Park, to repre-sent to him the injury which the public and the medical profes-sion would sustain by the passing of any such measure as theMedical Reform Bill introduced by Sir James Graham in thelast session of parliament. The hon. member devoted two hoursto the discussion of the Bill, and expressed his unqualified disap-probation of that clause in which it was proposed to repeal theApothecaries’ Act of 1815. He denounced unlicensed medicalpractice as alike dangerous to the community and unjust to thosepractitioners who had complied with the present law of the land.The hon. member was presumed to be made well acquaintedwith the subject by the deputation before the conference wasclosed, leaving them well pleased at the interview.

INCORPORATION OF THE GENERAL PRACTITIONERSOF IRELAND.-At a meeting of the apothecaries and generalpractitioners of the city of Dublin, held at the Royal Exchange,on the 20th, 24th, and 28th of January, after several resolutionshad been adopted relative to Sir James Graham’s Medical Bill, itwas resolved, " That the existing condition of the general practi-tioners throughout Ireland, who constitute by far the most nume-’rous body of the profession, and who, by reason of the exclusiveregulation of the several medical institutions, have no voice in thegovernment of their own body, renders it incumbent on them toseek for themselves a charter of incorporation from the legisla--

ture."

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.Gentlemen admitted members on Friday, February 7th, 1845:—E..L.

Hussey, R. D. Harling, W. T. Iliff, W. B. Young, T. Murray, M. Baines,.E. Caudle, J. Gilbert, H. Wright, F. W. Harris, H. Hastings, C. Millar,and G. Saunders.

APOTHECARIES’ HALL, LONDON.Names of gentlemen who have obtained certificates of qualification to’-

practise as apothecaries, on Thursday, Feb. 6th, 1845 :-Thomas Palmer,Cahir, Ireland; George Downing ; Daniel Carter; Peter Roscow, Hasling-den, Lancashire; William Henry Holman.

CORRESPONDENTS.Mr. C72ar7es Act. (Hereford) will find the curriculum of the London College

of Physicians in THE LANCET ALMANAC, and in the last Student’s Number.Any well-informed medical friend would point out to him the books he hadbest peruse.WINCHESTER HOSPITAL.—On Wednesday, January the 29th, Dr. Arthur

D. White and Dr. Wood were elected physicians to the above hospital.We beg to thank Mr. Macmeikan for the kind expressions contained in

his note of the loth instant.

The case where turning of the child was effected without the introduc-tion of the entire hand, forwarded by Mr. William Dalton, (Cheltenham,)and the note of Dr. Edward Binns, (Hounslow,) on the gastric juice, have-been received.The binder of the volumes belonging to Delta can with perfect ease ac-

complish a great part of the wish of their owner, if directions to that effectbe given to him. The remedy is in his hands at the end of every six months,and not in ours, weekly.

PSORIASIS.—Mr. J. H. Horne, in some remarks on the recent note ofMr. Waddington, of Margate, observes that his (Mr. H’s.) name and addressare appended to nearly thirty communications in the weekly medicalperiodicals, and that he should have been pleased at discovering among thevarious bibliographical notices of the past few years, " some elaborate workon scrofula, from the pen of a gentleman who has been for so many yearsattached to the Margate Royal Sea. Batliing Infirmary. Mr. Waddington(he continues) says that I have not given the treatment proposed by him afair trial in psoriasis diffusa, or palmaria. He is wrong here, for I have, forvery many years, always prefaced the treatment of psoriasis palmaria (inpsoriasis diffusa it is not so necessary) with the oleaginous treatment, &c. ;but had he said that the profession had not given it a trial, his remark mighthave been nearer the truth, as they frequently fall into the very great error,