130

THE LANCET.

LONDON : SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1855.

MR. REDWOOD’S EVIDENCE ON THE ADULTERATION OF DRUGS.

WHEN a Committee of the House of Commons was investi-

gating the question of the influence of noxious trades, such asbone-crushing and soap-boiling as conducted by certain parties,and other like callings, upon the Public Health, friendly wit-nesses were not wanting to contend that the objections urgedagainst these unsavoury, but " most salubrious and beneficial"

operations, were based upon ignorance and prejudice.If offensive trades," if the great stench interest, have their

apologists and advocates, why should adulterators lack them?Are there not two sides to every question? Is there nothingto be said in favour of adulteration? If there be not, then isthe plight of those who so kindly mix alum with our bread,chicory with our coffee, or who debase our drugs, very deplor-able indeed ! It would be passing strange if those ingenious mani-pulators, who exhibit such skill in imparting fictitious weight,colour, and gloss to material substances, making things worth-less in themselves, to put on the semblance and yield the profitof the most genuine products of nature or art, should not beable to command in abundance that metaphysical kind ofadulteration which consists in the perversion of language, in

cloaking unpleasant deeds under euphonious and apologeticwords-in short, in using the sophistries of speech to cover thecheats they perpetrate.Why do bakers put alum and sulphate of iron into our

bread? To get an unjust profit ?-to adulterate? A false andmalignant suggestion ! No ! The public will have bread ofabsolute whiteness; and it is simply to gratify the aesthetictaste of their customers that substances which have the con-

venient property of imparting the essential colour, and at thesame time of enabling them to work up bad flour instead ofsound, and to sell a certain weight of absorbed water at theprice of solid bread, are added.Why does the conscientious and obliging grocer mix chicory

with our coffee? For the purpose of selling so much chicory atthe price of coffee ? No such thing! The public is positivelyenamoured with chicory; chicory is good for us; it improvesthe flavour of coffee; and as we are too stupid or too ignorantto mix for ourselves, and yet will have the mixture, why Mr.SANDY SACCHARUM kindly mixes it for us.Why do the sauce-makers add ten pounds of red dirt to every

hundred gallons of anchovy sauce ? Simply because anchovysauce being an Epicurean luxury, it must be made to suit, not

only Epicurean palates,-we say nothing of stomachs,-but alsothe Epicurean eye. The bright red colour striking the greedyeye makes the mouth water, and excites a longing for the sauce.Take away the Armenian earth, and nobody would care for theanchovies.

Now we have no desire to class the respectable portion ofthe druggists with tradesmen of this kind, nor to representMr. REDWOOD as the deliberate apologist for the adulterationof drugs. We firmly believe that the great majority of theretail druggists deserve all that Mr. REDWOOD can say in theirfavour. We bear willing testimony to the conscientious

anxiety as to the purity of their drugs which most dispensing

chemists display. But we still think that the most rigid super-vision over the drug trade is essential to the well-being andsafety of the poorer classes. Mr. REDWOOD must be careful

not to strain too far his very proper distinction between the

impurities depending on the manufacture and wilful adultera-tions. It may be very true that cyanide of potassium need notbe pure for certain manufacturing processes, but this plea mustnot exempt from blame a druggist for using or selling impurecyanide of potassium for the purposes of medicine. Mr. RED-

WOOD conceives "that no one would charge the retail dealers"with adulterations; they were a body above suspicion, and itwas owing to them that cases had been detected and exposed."Mr. REDWOOD says "that inferior drugs were generally con-fined to low neighbourhoods, and were the result of competitionin price." " No one will doubt that bad drugs are more com-monly found in such localities ; but it would be a dangerousand false assumption to conclude that they are confined to suchlocalities. Our readers must compare these statements. Do

the druggists " in low neighbourhoods," under the influence of"competition," sell "inferior drugs," not knowing them to beadulterated ? Is the blame for selling these inferior drugs tobe charged, as Mr. REDWOOD asserts, exclusively upon thewholesale druggists and drug-grinders? Few impartial wit-nesses would hesitate for an answer. It follows, then, that thesupervision, or control, over the retail druggists which Mr.REDWOOD deprecates, is necessary. Which course is likely tobe the more useful ? That of visiting and testing the goods ofthe wholesale druggist, or those of the retail dealer who dis-penses his drugs immediately to the sick ? Why is it that thereexist drug-brokers who, as Dr. THOMSON says, are prepared to" supply any ground drug at a uniform price of 36s. per cwt. ?"Is not it because there is a demand? And who make the

demand, if not the retail druggists ? Indeed it is well known

in the trade that substances which ought, for medicinal pur-poses, to be of uniform quality-that is, pure,-and, there-

fore, of uniform price, may be procured at several prices, some-times much below the cost of producing the genuine substance.Mr. REDWOOD institutes a further distinction between

" fradulent" and "conventional" adulterations. " By the

"latter term, he meant those cases where the sanction of the"consumer was given, directly or indirectly, to the practice."Now, to admit such a distinction, without the greatest careand the most precise definition, would be to abandon all re-liable precautions against the practice of adulteration. Fraud

would speedily vanish into conventionalism; and because adul-teration-that is, fraud-is conventional between the wholesaleand the retail druggist, can it, by any stretch of morality, bemaintained that adulteration is conventional between the

retail dealer and the sick man who buys the sophisticateddrug, in the belief that it has healing power ?We cannot acquit Mr. REDWOOD of a certain recklessness of

assertion in his eagerness to defend his clients. Dr. THOMSON,whose skill and particular experience in this question are wellknown, had stated to the Committee that he now found the.same adulterations in drugs practised that he had detected in1838. Mr. REDWOOD, with singular assurance, undertook to

say that " Dr. THOMSON was very much deceived on the sub-

ject "! Mr. REDWOOD must be told, if he does not know it,that Dr. THOMSON speaks from actual and systematic analyses.In 1838, Dr. THOMSON having investigated the subject, foundcertain adulterations in drugs to be prevalent. For some time

131

-

THE BIRMINGHAM GAOL: CASE OF MP,. BLOUNT.

past he has regularly examined the drugs supplied to St.

Thomas’s Hospital; and as the result of his experience, he says,that frequently " one-third of the drugs examined have beenrejected"! It seems that, under the counsel of Dr. THOMSON,the authorities of St. Thomas’s very properly take the Phar-macopoeia. for their standard, and reject, as those who are re-sponsible for the health of others ought to reject, Mr. RED-WOOD’S doctrines of " impurities" and "conventional" fraud.Mr. REDWOOD further seeks to ward off legislative check or

control over adulteration in drugs by urging the cant phrase,’’ that the best remedy would be a better knowledge on thepart of both buyer and seller." The hollowness and absurdityof this plea, so often advanced, ought scarcely to call for ex-posure. Better knowledge on the part of the seller may be

a reasonable object to expect and to require. But not even

the Pharmaceutical Society, in spite of its great and usefullabours, would guarantee that all the retail dealers in drugspossess an adequate knowledge of their business. Some even

may know too much-not only enough to select good drugs,but also enough to enable them to deceive their customers.And with regard to whom, the sufferers by adulteration,fraudulent and conventional, what hypocrisy to talk of

waiting to check it until the untaught and neglected massesshall have acquired such a knowledge of Materia Medica as tobe able to protect themselves ! It would be as rational to

propose the abrogation of the laws against murder and felonyuntil men grow wise, or when such laws would not be needed.

If the retail drug-dealers were all really so well informedand so incorruptible as Mr. REDWOOD says they are, then,indeed, neither laws against adulteration, nor knowledge onthe part of the public, would be necessary; but until Mr. RED-WOOD’S testimony be true, what shall be done? We have totake care of ourselves, and can hardly be satisfied with con-templating the visionary happiness of the generations of themillennium.

THE question of prison discipline, hanging as it does uponthat of secondary punishments, is one upon which the opinionsof the executive not less than of the public are as yet very un-settled. Are gaols to be looked upon simply and only as

reformatory institutions, or as places where reformation shallbe held the secondary object, punishment being the first ? Weneed not say what the law declares upon this question. The

law sentences to punishment. Reformation is an object, extra-

judicial, that exercises, and, we freely acknowledge it, deser-

vedly exercises, the gratuitous thought and labour of philan-thropists. But in the conflict between the stern dictates of

the law and the gentler but enthusiastic exertions of benevo-lence, many difficulties arise in the path of those whose dailyduty it is to execute the statutes, and who are called upon at thesame time to adapt their conduct to the temper and the theoriesof the particular magistrates under whom they act. Such

difficulties beset Lieutenant AUSTIN and Mr. BLOUNT, the

governor and surgeon of the Birmingham gaol. Both these

gentlemen have had to stand at the bar of a criminal court, invindication of their character for humanity, because they werenot able to conciliate the impossible tasks of satisfying theadvocates of penal treatment on the one hand, and of the dis-ciples of reformatory education on the other. At first the Bir-

mingham gaol was placed under the care of Captain MACONO-cHiE, whom we may call-and to his honour--the apostle of

the reformatory doctrine. Under his direction, it could hardlybe said that punishment, in the sense in which the judges whocondemned the prisoners understood it, was ever practised. Itwas more of the kind to which we are accustomed at

school-stimulative to exertion and improvement-prospectivein its aim, not penal. But amidst fierce contentions between

the penal and the reformatory parties, Captain MACONOCHiEwas forced to retire. Lieutenant AUSTIN, who, we presume, wasmore fitted to maintain the discipline of the gaol on the penalprinciple, succeeded. A boy, named ANDREWS, undoubtedlya malingerer, called for measures that appeared excessivelysevere to the partizans of Captain MACONOCHIE. He com-

mitted suicide; but it would be illogical and unfair to inferthat this catastrophe, however shocking, is to be laid at thedoor of Mr. AUSTIN. There have been six attempts at suicidesince Mr. AUSTIN’S resignation. The witnesses who spoke tothe severity of the treatment to which ANDREWS was subjecteddid not remonstrate to the governor or other authorities whilst

he was alive; it was only after the fatal event, when the feel.

ings of the reformatory party were aroused, that they seem tohave become impressed with the gravity of the case. The jury,viewing the matter more dispassionately and impartially, veryjustly, in our opinion, acquitted Mr. AUSTIN.

In the next indictment Mr. AUSTIN was included with Mr.

BLOUNT. Both the governor and the surgeon were chargedwith cruelty towards a prisoner named HUNT. This man was

described as very refractory, violent, and dangerous. For the

purpose of restraint, not of punishment, Mr. AUSTIN orderedthe strait-waistcoat to be applied. He was still ungovernable,and "striving to bite everybody." The governor, Mr. BLOUNT,and other officers being present, it occurred to Mr. BLOUNT

that pressing some salt, which lay at hand on the emergency,into the prisoner’s mouth might help to tranquillize him. Hadhe swallowed a sufficient quantity, it undoubtedly would havedone so. As it was, the man spat it out again, and no harmwas done. It is not pretended that unnecessary or injuriousviolence was employed; yet such is the indiscriminate zeal ofpartizanship, such the fierceness of benevolence in some of itsmoods, that this act, performed strictly under medical discre-tion, was interpred as an example of cruelty. The reforma-

tory magistrates rose at the cry; the indignation of the publicwas invoked; the Home-Office was assailed, and induced toissue a Commission of Inquiry. This Commission, which satin 1853, we say it with regret, conducted its inquiries underan evident bias against the officers. Of this we cited instances

at the time. The result of this Commission was the presentprosecution. But in the interval, happily for justice as well asfor the accused, public excitement has cooled down, and the

jury have been allowed to come to a temperate and righteousverdict. Both gentlemen were acquitted.Every man of right feeling will, we think, rejoice in this

issue. It would have been a scandal and a reproach to theadministration of the law to sacrifice men who were discharg-ing a most anxious and difficult duty, according to the best oftheir judgment, to the outcry of enthusiastic theorists, whowould make it a crime not to regard a gaol as a normal school.We offer no objection to the exertions of those who seek to

soften the vindictive rigour of our gaol discipline, and to utilizethe forced sojourn of criminals in the gaols for the purpose ofmorl regeneration. But we think it not uncalled-for to urge.

upon those gentlemen the propriety of exercising some of that

132

THE VACANT PRESIDENCY OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH.

forbearance and consideration towards those who hold oppositeopinions, which they so lavishly display towards their felonious)!’0.We believe that Mr. BLOUNT, who was forced to resign his

appointment, has suffered much, for.a time, in his professionalprospects. That any slur upon his character as a gentlemanof integrity, of Christian feelings, or of high professional attain-ments, will remain, is impossible. He is a young man, and

will, we sincerely trust, find that this event will now no longerimpede him in the honourable and useful calling which heis well fitted to exercise.

IT is not yet announced, and we believe not yet definitivelydetermined, who is to be the new President of the Board ofHealth. We trust that the delay in filling up the vacancy leftby the removal of Sir B. HALL to a more elevated politicalposition is the result of a conscientious anxiety to select thebest man for this most important office. The assumption ofsystematic care of the Public Health by the Executive is a newfeature in administration. The success of this measure must

depend greatly upon the fitness and zeal of those who may becalled upon in the outset to take a leading part. The con-

fidence of the medical profession and of the public has to beacquired, or at least confirmed. The practical utility of centralsanitary supervision, however obviously great to those mosteompetent to judge, has yet to be proved to many. The

sterling qualities displayed by Sir B. HALL during his briefperiod of office have enabled him to overcome many of theinitiatory difficulties. But unless the same qualities be foundin his successor, it is to be feared that the question of sanitaryimprovement may be seriously retarded.The new President, therefore, we say it emphatically, must

not be chosen from mere party or political considerations. He

must not be a mere Government hack. He must be a man

of solid attainments, of high and independent character, of

capacity for business, and of influence in the House of Com-mons to enable him to command attention for the measures he

may find it necessary to introduce. He must bring tact, zeal,and devotion to his duties. The organisation and establish-ment of a new department cannot .be effected by the mere’outinie1". Much has to be created; many unsettled questionshave to be examined and tested with vigour and independence;many newly-discovered truths have to be applied to practice.The President of the Board of Health cannot fall down quietlyinto an easy, well-worn official fauteuil, and find a smoothly-oiled machinery working automatically around him. He has

to construct, not simply to functionate.

THE case of suspected slow poisoning by arsenic, at Darling-ton, which is now the subject of legal investigation, is one ofunusual medical and legal interest. We think, however, itwould not be consistent with justice, or fair to the accused,pending his trial, to enter upon any comments. That the

case will be thoroughly investigated we anxiously trust. No

pains, no cost, should be spared to trace out and analyze to theutmost every fact that can throw light upon it. The accused

himself has demanded that the body, parts of which havealready been submitted to examination, shall be exhumed, and

it is understood that Dr. TAYLOR is charged with the investi.

gation. When the trial has taken place, we shall feel it our

duty to lay the medico-legal facts of the case, with such

observations as we may deem necessary, before the profession.

Correspondence.THE CASE OF CONGENITAL FISSURE OF THE

STERNUM.

" Audi alteram partem."

To the Bditor of THE LANCET.

SiR,—The Medical Society of the Parisian Hospitals havingnominated a commission, composed of MM. Aran, Beau, Bou-vier, Herard, Monneret, and Roger, to investigate the "viceof conformation" presented by M. Groux, M. Behier, in thename of such commission, has just presented the followingreport. Believing the case of M. Groux not to have lost anyof its interest, I venture to transfer this report from the pagesof the Union Médicale, with your permission, to those of THELANCET. Yours obediently,

W. HUGHES WILLSHIPE, M.D.,August, 1855. Assistant-Physician to the Charing-cross Hospital.

W. HUGHES WILLSHIRE, M.D.,Assistant-Physician to the Charing-cross Hospital.

The "vice of conformation" exhibited by M. Groux is afissure of the sternum, in the centre of which is to be seen atumour agitated by certain movements.The fissure is produced by the division of the sternum into

two slightly unequal parts, separated the one from the otherfor two centimetres at the upper portion of the chest, and reounited by an inferior cartilaginous angle. It is within thistriangular space, whose base is uppermost, that a mobile

tumour is seen. This tumour, five and a half centimetres longand two and a half broad, appears as if bilobate towards its upperthird, joined by its external edge to the internal margin of theleft half of the sternum, beneath which it appears to pass. Itis influenced by two movements-one of amplification or en.largement, exerted slowly and softly; the other of MMchot<of!/contraction, directed obliquely from above downwards, andfrom right to left, and more brusquely and rapidly executed.It does not entirely disappear beneath the left half of thesternum, but still remains at the moment of its greatest col-lapse or subsidence a centimetre broad.

It gives to the hand first the sensation of a body escaping frombeneath the fingers as it hardens, then that of a deep shock,"with which its dilatation commences.The tumour has not entirely collapsed at the moment of the

heart’s shock in the precordial region, nor at the time of thecarotid pulse, nor at the moment when the first of the twopulsations experienced above the swelling is perceived.

It is completely collapsed at the time of the radial pulsation.It begins to dilate at the moment the deep impulse or shock

is felt at the base, at that of the occurrence of the second ofthe two superior pulsations, and at the time when the secondsound of the heart is heard.

It lessens at the time of forced inspiration without com-pletely disappearing, and remains about one centimetre broad.

It augments considerably in volume upon exertion or a pro.longed expiration, becoming seven and a half centimetres longand four broad, with exaggeration of the bilobate character,the line of separation being a curve with its concavity down.wards.

Lastly, it is under the same circumstances surmounted by avoluminous and sonorous swelling, which throws it slightlyforwards.After having pointed out the position and the characters of

the tumour, the reporter inquires by what part of the circu-latory apparatus it is constituted.Not by the aorta-Because the tumour is increased in volume during the expi.

ratory effort.Because the structure of the aorta would not allow of -such

considerable distension as the size of this tumour, even in astate of repose of the person; and moreover, if such distensionwere possible, the subsidence observed would be disproportionatewith that seen in general in the arterial systole.

Because the systolic movement is more active, more energeticthan the diastolic, and which is contrary to what takes placein the aorta.