81

THE LANCET.

London, Saturday, April 19, 1828.

ANATOMICAL SUBJECTS.

THE members of our profession must haveseen with regret, in the Parliamentary re-

ports of this week, that the Marquis ofLAKSDOWN failed in his attempt to diminish

existing prejudices by omitting in his Billfor the Consolidation of the Criminal Law

the clause which consigns the bodies of

murderers to the purposes of dissection. Earl

GREY opposed the omission in a singu-larly confused and illogical speech; but his

arguments, such as they were, appear to haveconfirmed the prejudices of his noble hear-ers, and the object of the numerous pro-fessional petitioners, who have approachedthe legislature, will, we fear, for the pre-sent session be frustrated. We are per-

suaded, that no provisions which can be

adopted with a view to facilitate the acqui-sition of anatomical knowledge will ever beeffectual, so long as the legislature sanctionsthe annexing of dissection as an addition to

ithe punishment for the crime of murder,and thereby fosters and encourages the pre- I!judices entertained by the public.

If the legislature regard dissection as a

degradation, and a fit punishment for thecriminal, how can it be expected that the

public will not regard it as a degradation,and a punishment unjustly inflicted upon theinnocent? We subjoin the remarks of theeditor of the Morning Chronicle on this sub-ject ; they are characterised by the vigour,acuteness, and philosophical spirit, whichdistinguish the leading articles of that ablewriter:-

EARL GREY last night moved, as an

amendment to the Bill for consolidating thelaw relative to offences against the person,that the clause ordering the bodies of mur-derers to be given up for dissection, shouldbe restored. His reasoning in favour of hisamendment was not very consistent. "He

believed, that if an individual had made

up his mind to complete so horrible a crimeas murder, that no additional fear or disgracewould deter him from carrying his designinto execution; but, in his opinion, the giv-ing the body to be dissected, operated effec-tually by spreading a salutary terror throughthe community, and kept up that horror atcommitting the crime of murder, for whichthe people of England had always been dis-tinguished in the opinion of those who hadpaid most attention to the subject." At the

same time he doubted if the theory, " thatthe stigma thus cast on dissection, by con-demning the murderer to be dissected, pre.vented others from allowing their bodies tobe dissected after death, and prevented therelations and friends of the dead from givingthem up for this purpose, were founded in

truth." But if the addition of dissecting iseffectual to the spreading a salutary terrorthrough the community, and to keeping upa horror of committing the crime of murder,it must be effectual in preventing personsfrom allowing their bodies to be dissectedafter death, and in preventing relations andfriends of the dead from giving them up tobe dissected. But there is a vagueness in

the whole argument of his Lordship. Dis-

section must either be an awful thing initself, or it is not. If it be not awful in

itself, then it is the horror of murder

which communicates the horror at dis-

section, from its being reserved for the

murderer. In that case the dissection is

superfluous, as it has no horror but what itborrows from the murder. The horror of

murder is, on this supposition, communi-cated gratuitously to dissection, as, if an

object to borrow part of the horror must behad, something else might be hit on, the

selecting of which would not be injurious tomedical science. But if the dissecting is

horrible in itself, and communicates an ad-ditional horror to murder, then his Lord.

ship, to be consistent, should follow up his

principle, by adding a number of other hor-

82 THE EDINBURGH MEDICAL

rors, besides dissection, to death for murder.He should return to the embowelling sys-tem, or borrow a chapter from our ancientallies the Turks, and suggest empalement.

His reasoning is a logical blunder of a

very obvious kind. The horror of murder,is the cause of the horror felt at the punish-ment reserved for murder, and not the

punishment the cause of the horror felt atmurder. Punish any man with death and

dissection for what, in public opinion, is a

praiseworthy act, and see what will becomeof your horror.

Again, his Lordsliip believed, that if anindividual had made up his mind to com-

plete so horrible a crime, no additional fearor disgrace would deter him from carryinghis design into execution ; but he wished,by giving the body up for dissection, to

spread a salutary terror through the com-

munity. He wishes to terrify those who arenot likely to commit murder, by meanswhich will have no effect in terrifying thoselikely to commit murder. Precious princi-ples of penal legislation ! and preciouslysupported! We cannot stay the hand ofthe murderer, but we can frighten other

people ; we call strike a salutary terror

into them ! But why salutary? The objectof punishment is to deter from guilt, andnot to terrify the innocent. But we have

here again the self-same fallacy. It is the

horror of the murder which produces the

salutary impression on those who witnessthe punishment, and not the severity of thepunishment. The prostitution of severityof punishment renders the people callous.

When men were hanged in London for allmanner of crimes, the scene of executionwas a scene of gross and indecent ribaldry.But when punishment is reserved for

crimes for which the people feel a horror,they view the punishment with the samefeeling.As to what fell from Lord TMTERDEN, it

was sheer twaddle. He must take the libertyof doubting, that the giving up the body to

dissection cast a stigma on dissection ; buthe was unwilling to see an alteration, which

might diminish the terror at the punish.ment of murder, and thought that when thefirst idea of committing such a crime enter.ed the mind, it might be checked and ex.

pelled, by the additional disgrace of his

body being liable to be exposed after death,There is no dealing with this.

Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.April, 1828.

LET no one in future affirm, that the medi.cal is a grave profession ; for as a pun or adefinition, the epithet is a calumny. Doc.

tors, indeed, seldom send sick folks to the

grave except by mistake, or when theycannot otherwise help it ; and we have inthe work before us, a demonstration to the

length of some hundred pages, that they arethe most laughter. stirring essayists of the

age. The caterers for magazines, who toilnight and day to amuse us once a month, are

really to be pitied when their pains are contrasted with the ease with which the cot-

respondents of the medical journals exciteour risibility. The former endeavour to putus in good humour by an artificial levity,which not unfrequently makes us excessive-ly sad ; the latter succeed by an unaffectedphilosophic solemnity of manner in whichthey burlesque the most serious subjects.Quite unconscious of the powers which theypossess, they are not only witty themselves,but the cause of it, like Falstaff, in others.We are quite willing to put our theory tothe test of experiment, by transplantinginto the New Monthly, or Blackwood, oneof the twenty original communications in

the " Blue Journal" for this quarter; andif it do not surpass in effect the best speci.mens of studied humour in either of these

miscellanies, we will for ever relinquish alt

pretension to a critical perception of the ri.diculous. The only exception we will stateto this trial is, that our friend Dr. Johnatoce

83AND SURGICAL JOURNAL.

be not one of the jury ; for, subsisting as ajournalist by plagiary alone, we fear thecontents of the present number will have a

melancholy effect on him, and that while

the whole profession is enjoying the fun, theDoctor will be actually shedding tears at

their total inutility, even for the pages of a" fasciculus." But we must hasten to con-

firm him in the gloomy tidings by a runningcommentary on the entire stock.

In the front of the line stands Mr. John

Crichton, surgeon of the Royal Infirmary atDundee, and certainly worthy of appearingat the head of more respectable troops, be-ing a marvellously modest and clever man.From his name, residence, and ambidex-terity, we strongly suspect, indeed, that hemust be a lineal descendant of the " admi- I

rable Crichton," for whose birth Dundee

and Perth might institute an antiquariancontest, like the cities of Greece for that of

Homer. Mr. Crichton, however, appearsto be an excellent lithotomist, breaking alance with Mr. Martineau himself, of Nor-

wich, for the palm of success, and the num-ber of his operations. From a table append-ed to his short essay, we find that he has

cut for the stone in upwards of seventy cases,with but the loss of some nine or ten pa-tients, though he tells us, he never refusedto operate under the most unfavourable cir-cumstances. This table, however, does notcontain all his cases, for, like all great artists,he seems to think so little about the feats

which lie has achieved, that he has kept noregular record of the whole, but states, thatthey may in all amount to a hundred. Whatis still more remarkable, but equally cha-racteristic of the man of genius, he does noteven trouble the public with an account ofhis method of performing the operation ;and we can collect little more on this pointfrom his essay, than that he considers the

man of more importance than the measure,and is a decided enemy, consequently, to allinstrumental stratagems for the extraction

of the stone, as may be perceived from the

following pithy expression, after noticingthe various sections proposed by different

lithotomists :-" By each of these modes, the opening

has been successfully made, and will be soby those who can properly guide the instru-ment ; and by none of them will it be wellexecuted by those who cannot."

"

’Tis heart alone, north steel and stone,&c., to which Mr. Crichton entirely looks;but we regret that one, so capable of afford-

ing information on the subject about whichhe writes, and whom we are sure, from the

specimen before us, it would be so agree-able to quote, should have given us an op.portunity of recording the results of his ex-perience on only one or two other points. Onone of these; the union of the incision madein cutting for the stone by the first inten-tion we certainly agree with him, that the

profession has not given the matter that

consideration which it deserves, as he ex-

presses himself in these observations:-" Though his attention has been but lately

turned to this subject, he has had the satis-faction of succeeding in the attempt in fivedifferent instances. Three of these success-ful instances occurred in children, the othertwo in men upwards of seventy years ofage. Where the incisions have been fairlymade, union by adhesion may be secured,and ought to be attempted, in order to pre-vent one of the most disagreeable conse-quences of the operation, the dribbling ofthe urine for days through the wound, withthe risk of infiltration."

What now becomes of all the splutter thathas been made by writers and operatorsabout the passage of the urine through theurethra being a dangerous symptom, whenoccurring immediately after the operation.When we see three children and two men

of seventy whole and sound, so that no onecould discover the marks of a knife on them

in three or four days after the extraction ofthe stone ; such miracles, we fear, are onlyto be accomplished by such men as Mr.Crichton, who is equally luminous and tothe point on the second and only other

topic on which we shall quote him, as fol..

lows :.--.

84 THE EDINBURGH MEDICAL

"When the bladder is laid open, theurine escapes, and the bladder contractsround the stone. Where then, is the stoneto be found Close to the opening, mostcertainly. In one hundred cases in which Ihave operated, it has always been so. Bynot adverting to this circumstance, the for-ceps is passed over the stone, carrying thecoats of the collapsed bladder before its

point; the stone all the while lying beneaththe blades. At another time the stone is

pushed before the points of the forceps, anda portion of the bladder contracting aroundit, like the finger of a glove, it cannot belaid hold of. The like may also happen fromthe bladder being too much distended withurine, in consequence of the cruel and ab.surd practice of compressing the urethrasome hours before operating, in which casethe bladder, when suddenly emptied, maycollapse irregularly and retain the stone,especially if a small one, between its folds."

In these and the other remarks which

precede them in Mr. Crichton’s paper, hevery properly endeavours to guard the ope-rator against the common error committedin the manipulation of the forceps ; for in

most of the ill-performed operations whichwe have witnessed, the difficulties of each

case seemed only to have commenced withthe introduction of the forceps. Nothing,indeed more common, as Mr. Crichton ob-

serves, than to see one of these bunglersabsolutely sweating with turning, twisting,and groping with a forceps for nearly anhour,as if he were really fishing for a pin-headin a forty.fathom whirlpool, while the objectof his search was all the time lying at thesurface. Whether the explanations whichhave been given by Mr. Crichton of thesedifficulties be correct or feasible, we will

leave our readers to judge for themselves,merely observing, that the similes of the

"finger of the glove," and the " irregularcontraction" of the bladder are, perhaps,too ingenious even for that most astute of allmechanicians-N ature ; but we critics, who

perform the operation oftener with the penthan the scalpel, have no right whatever to

question the experience of a hero, whoseblade has been "fleshed in a hundred bat-

tles." In parting with iAIr. Crichton, whichwe do with the deepest respect for his ta-

lents, we need scarcely observe that he

states, that in his hundred cases he had not

a single instance of that bug-bear so muchtalked of in works on lithotomy, woundingof the pudic artery ; and in this respect wecan assure him, that he is by no means sin.gular, for arteries of every description in.variably keep out of the way instinctively,whenever they perceive the knife of an ex.pert operator like him in their vicinity.

A paper of a similar description follows,by Mr. Liston, containing a table of thirtycases, in which he cut for the stone, and

with but the loss of one patient. In their

contempt for instrumental devices, and theirconfidence in manual dexterity, as well asin their success, there is a striking accord.ance of opinion between these two Law.rences of the north. The same indifference

to the vulgar notion, of the difficulty of theoperation, is also a feature common to boththese artists. Mr. Liston, for instance, in.

forms us with the utmost simplicity, that" He never for show cut against time;

but, that he has very often finished the

operation leisurely in less than one and a half,or two minutes ; that he uses a sharp-pointedinstrument for making the incisions, a largestaff with a wide groove betwixt its convexside and surface, a large elastic tube in thewound, for the first few days, to guardagainst infiltration, and that he never pre.pares his patients, as he conceives thatmore is lost in the depression of spirits thatattends delay, than can ever be made up byphysicing before, or by attention after, theoperation."

We cannot conclude our notice of these

two papers, better than by pointing out themoral lesson, which they present against allmedical book-makers. We have here two

pre-eminently successful lithotomists, the

one cutting in thirty, the other ina hundredcases of stone, and neither thinking it neces’

sary to dilate on an art in which both excel,

beyond ten pages ; while the late Mr. Allan,who, we believe, operated but three or

four times in his whole life, thought fit to

blow his experience into a brace of quartobubbles !

85AND SURGICAL JOURNAL.

With these papers we quit the commonsense part of the collection, and are imme-

diately warned of our approach into the

regions of twaddle, by an essay, from the

pen of Dr. Lee " On Delivery in Presen-tations, where Turning is unavoidable."

Divested of the chaff, we shall present theone grain contained in his bushel, thoughwe are perfectly aware, that the same is

not of native growth :-" Whenever the valuable life of the

mother is in danger, and no good can resultfrom the operation of turning, so far as thechild is concerned, I propose to do by art,that which is effected by nature in cases ofspontaneous evolution of the fcetus. I sepa-rate the arm from the body, perforate thethorax, and having fixed the crotchet in thepelvis, or lower part of the spine, make sucha degree of traction as may effect the de-livery, without laceration or contusion ofthe soft parts of the mother."

Cases are given, in which the dead foetushas been thus extracted in a doubled state,with perfect security to the parent ; butnotwithstanding his lamentation over the

neglect of writers and lecturers on the sub-

ject of turning, &c., it is almost impossibleto add anything new in the way of in-

struction and advice, to what has been bothwritten and spoken on the topic. We see

no possible reason why the next three

papers, by Dr. John Davy, physician to thearmy, should not have been incorporatedinto a " tria juncta in uno," their contentsbeing of so homogeneous a character. Theyconsist of an examination of, and experi-ments on, the following queries :-" Is the fibrin of the blood of lower spe-

cific gravity, than even the serum? Is theblood, which has a buffy coat after coagula-tion, of lower specific gravity than healthyblood? and does it contain a larger portionof fibrin 1 Is there any heat given off duringthe coagulation of the blood? Is there anyfree carbonic acid in the blood ?"

In opposition to the statements of Magen-die and others, Dr. Davy answers theseseveral questions in the negative ; but ex-

periments, and the reasoning founded onthem, rarely admitting of an intelligiblecurtailment, we shall merely content our-

selves with the general results, leaving Dr.Johnstone to supply our deficiency, whohas lately turned out a connoisseur in con-

densation, as well as contradiction. Con-

versant as the performance of our criticalduties necessarily renders us with the arti-fices of authorism, we confess we never metwith so impudent an appropriation of thecommon property of the profession, so out-rageous an insult on its common sense, as

that displayed in the paper which followsthe preceding articles. Who indeed could

have supposed, that the treatment of whit-low required to be improved, much lessimagine that any writer would have the

assurance to take to himself the credit of

practice so successful, and well know* byevery surgeon in the British Empire ? Yet

these are the ends which Dr. Craigie, of

Edinburgh, proposes to accomplish in a

thirty page essay, entitled, 11 Observations,

Pathological and Practical, on Whitlow."Instead of making long extracts, and givinga continuous comment on them, we shallcome at once to close quarters with the

Doctor, exposing the more glaring points ofhis presumption, sentence for sentence.

° By many," says he, " whitlow is con-sidered as a complaint too trifling to meritserious attention." .

No, indeed, master Filch, it is consideredno such thing, it merely answered yourpurpose to say so; for, by every surgeon,the complaint has been considered one ofthe most painful, and even dangerous mala-dies, to which fingers and hands, at least,are subject." When a person complains," continues

the Doctor, " that he cannot use his hand,because a finger is painful and swelled, he isrecommended, in imitation of the older sur-, geons, to apply the balsam of arcasus, orphioravant, or warm oil of turpentine ; to

plunge it in boiling water after the mannerof Callisen and Homberg, perhaps to envelopeit in a poultice ; or, according to the com-pressive method of Parry, to apply a tight

bandage."No such directions are now ever given;

86 THE EDINBURGH MEDICAL

nine-tenths of the surgeons of this country,know nothing of your arcaeus or phioravant,though they know perfectly well how to

treat whitlow; and that this was the case,

you were perfectly aware, by your own

confession." That this was not always the case, I

am perfectly aware. The writings of Am-brose Pare, of Wiseman, of Gouey, of

Garengeot, of Heister, David, and manyother surgeons show, that whitlow wasalways apprehended as a disease which wasnot only severe at the time, but might t ter-minate in the destruction of useful parts.I know not that I would be justified in

asserting, that the precepts of these authorsare entirely overlooked by surgeons; but Ihave some reason to infer, that if they arenot entirely forgotten, they are by no meansso thoroughly understood among the gene-rality of practitioners, as to be steadily ap-plied in practice."

" Willing to wound, and yet afraid to

strike," the wriggling struggle between thefear of detection, and the desire of spolia-tion in this conscience-stricken compromisewith the profession, needs no illustration.We are next treated with a long account ofthe divisions of this disease, by various

writers, out of which the Doctor compoundsan arrangement, which he thinks much

better than any yet given, though, in reality,it is the one generally adopted by everysurgeon.

° Every form assumed by whitlow, how-ever varied in degree, in kind, or in extent,may be referred, I conceive, to the threefollowing simple heads :—1st. That whichis seated in the corion, or, at least, in itsouter surface; 2d. That which affects thesubcutaneous cellular tissue ; and 3d. Thatwhich, commencing in the synovial sheathsof the flexor tendons, passes not only to thecellular substance and skin, but to the sub-jacent and adhering periosteum of the

phalanges."Such is the Doctor’s new arrangement,

between which and Garengeot’s, he is ob-

liged to confess there is but this difference,that his third division is made to compre-hend a fourth form of the disease mentioned

by the former author, as commencing in thevessels passing from the periosteum to the libone, but wluch variety of the complaint Dr.

Craigie thinks is but a secondary effect ofthe Innammation originating in the thecal

sheaths, and subsequently passing to the pe.riosteum of the bone. There is no reason,

however, for supposing, until the contraryis demonstrated, (which, though Dr. Craigiehas pledged himself to do, he has certainlyfailed in the attempt,) that inflammationdoes not primarily attack the periosteal vea.sels of the bones of the phalanges, just asit does in the acute periostitis of other

parts of the the body, and thereby producewhat is called paronychia. But the Doctormust have a new arrangement of his own,

perceiving, we presume, that some late

writers acquired a little reputation by thisfashionable manufacture. There is not,

indeed, a two-year-old pathologist, who

writes a paper at any of our juvenile medi.cal societies, who has not his new arrange.ment ; one of whom, we have lately heard,beat Dr. Copland hollow, having divided

typhus fever into twenty-five stages, and

assigned very plausible reasons for his dis.

position of the subject.

"Nothing is easier," says the shrewdDr. Barclay, " than in this way to class andarrange from fancy or whim, and nothingmore difficult than to class and arrange afterthe manner-of a Bacon, or a Linnaeus. Thefirst only requires a genius for new-fashion.ing trinkets and dresses, or inventing newmodes of reform, to suit the popular taste ofthe day. The second requires the steady,vigorous, penetrating mind, that takes inthe compass of nature at a glance, that learnsfrom herself to explain her various opera.tions, and how to discover those generallaws, which the Almighty Sovereign of theuniverse has willed her to obey."

The Doctor, we fear, will come under the

definition of one of these pathological milli-ners, "with a genius for new-fashioningtrinkets and dresses ;" but be this as it may,he next favours us with a description of thesymptoms-lippis et tonsoribus nota-aye,to the precise quantum and quality of the

pain felt by the patient; and then, with the

pathology of the disease, as a matter ofcourse, as follows:—

87AND SURGICAL JOURNAL.

" The digital corion presents certain pe-culiarities, which impress a particular cha-racter on its morbid states. It is, in thefirst place, exceedingly vascular, more so

than in any other part of the person,scarcely excepting the face. So far as canbe judged from inspection, and the effectsof mechanical means, it is much more denseand compact, than in any other part of thebody. Thirdly, its proper sensibility, or

what Bichat terms its organic sensibility isvery considerable ; and that which it de.rives from minute ramifications of nerves isso great, that several physiological anato-mists have ascribed to this circumstance,the high sensibility and nice tact of the digi-tal corion. To these circumstances, whichare well-known to anatomists, may be partlyascribed the readiness with which the

digital corion assumes the peculiar inflammation occurring in whitlow."

The Doctor’s ° digital corion" has, un-doubtedly, evinced a " nice tact" in para-phrasing a common-place fact, as may be

perceived, from the air of learning withwhich he invests the simple ideas of the

density and sensitiveness of the structure ofthe finger, of which few required to be in-formed. We are next entertained with a

particular account of the three kinds of

whitlow; and he then proceeds to fulfil his

promise, of proving the transition of inflam-mation from the thecal tendons, to the pe-riosteum and bone ; but after exhaustingCamper’s anatomical description of theseparts, and his own ingenuity in the attempt,he is compelled to come to the conclusion,with which every surgeon has been longacquainted, namely, that the inflammation is

propagated by contiguity of parts, thus :-" In short, the anatomical arrangement

of the digital synovial sheaths, explains, atonce, the two principal phenomena, forwhich thecal paronychia is distinguished :-death of the tendons, and caries of the

phalanges, or their articular extremities."

No doubt, the " anatomical arrangement"may, and is generally supposed to be, thecause of these effects ; but it would also goto prove, that the inflammation may ex-tend from the periosteum to the thecal ten-dons, or the converse of the opinion whichis sought to be established. This question,

however, is of no practical importancewhatever, and must, perhaps, for ever re-maill a mere supposition ; so we shall turnfrom its consideration to the treatment and

what, reader, do you suppose is the pana-cea which Dr. Craigie proposes, and would

appropriate as peculiarly his own? Hear

it, ye sons of Æsculapius, in his own

words :--

"For these evils, the natural (artificial,one might suppose) remedy, I conceive, ismuch earlier employment of the INCISION.

To be efficient, indeed, the principle of thismeasure requires to be completely changed;instead of using it with a view of openingan abscess, and discharging purulent mat-ter, it should be employed--first, as a

powerful and efficient means of depletion ;secondly, as the means of preventing thatcompression which, by its mechanical poweronly, must speedily arrest the circulationin the tendons, and thereby prevent morti-fication in their texture."

So, it thus turns out in the end, that theDoctor’s secret is INCISION, which, we verilybelieve, has been the practice of every sur-

geon in the country for, at least, the last

half century ! But, then, it should be" employed early," and so it would, if

patients only applied in time, or, when theydid so, had only the common sense to sub-mit to a procedure always recommended,but rarely complied with until sufferingforces them to yield to the measure, whentoo late to prevent the mischief. It should

also be used, says the sagacious Doctor, to

prevent " mechanical compression" - as" local depletion," and, as merely " open-

ing an abscess," as if these were not the

; objects held in view-the principle uponwhich every surgeon carried his scalpeldown to the bone for the cure of whitlow.

It :3 also worth hearing how the Doctor, stumbled on this great discovery, now thatwe have given the secret itself

,

It is chiefly from remarking (says he)the unfavourable termination of cases of

whitlow, treated on the rules of Dionis, &c.,or left to the use of the poultice, or evenneglected entirely, as often happens withpatients who will not apply for professionalassistance until the disease is no longer

88 EPIGRAM.—JOE BURNS’ LAST.

tolerable, that I was led to employ incisions,deep and long, at an earlier period than isgenerally thought necessary. More thanonce I have been interrogated on whatprin-ciple I pursued this practice, and at firstI was unable to give any other reply thanthe favourable result. The explanationgiven above is, I conceive, the true one;and, if it is so, it demonstrates, most in-disputably, the rule which I wish to esta-

blish, that not a moment should be lost individing, from one end to the other, thetendinous sheath of the affected finger."

Simple hearted man ! did ever discovererof so much merit speak of himself with somuch modesty 1 Ben Bowsprit, master ofa merchant man, might, with equal pro-priety, on his return from Honduras with a

cargo of mahogany, proclaim himself the dis-coverer of America, and attempt to per-suade the cabinet-makers that his vessel

was freighted with a new and superiorspecies of wood, as Dr. Craigie to persuadethe profession that he was the discovererof the practice of incisions in whitlow ! It

was not, indeed, as you state, from observ-ing any such failures that you were led to

this practice ; it is much more probablethat you were led to adopt it from seeingits beneficial effects in some hospital or

other ; from reading Ricliter, the proposerof the measure, as now generally practised,and whose name you have never once men-

tioned, for obvious reasons ; or, lastly, fromperusing the article on the subject in Mr.Samuel Cooper’s Dictionary, in which all

the information expanded into your thirtypages of plagiarism may be found condensedinto one or two columns.

We have been prolix in our exposure of

the literary larceny committed in this paper,beyond, perhaps, what the nature of the

offence demanded. But we perceive that

there is a disposition abroad for the manu-facture of such monographs, from the creditwhich a few of them have unjustly secured totheir authors. Dr. Duncan, junior, latelysucceeded in a speculation of this kind ondiffuse inflammation; but the paper was

wanted, because the disease had previously

been but imperfectly and only recently in.vestigated ; and well done, because by a mancertainly of considerable talent. Dr. Craigie,emulous of the success of his predecessor aseditor of the journal in which he writes

this article, must also concoct a monograph,and aspire to have his name henceforthunited with whitlow. It speaks, however,little for the taste and erudition of the pro.

fession, when an individual, by the mere as.sistance of a "catalogue raisonne," and acritical condensation of the labours of other

writers, can acquire the reputation of a

clever man, and an original author in medi.cal literature. To foster such attempts,tends only to turn the tide of investigationfrom its natural course, to fix the attention

of men in an unprofitable admiration of theefforts of their predecessors, rather than tostimulate them to a manly enterprise in thefield of future discovery. Here we must

stop for the present.

EPIGRAM

On the Patient who suddenly decamped fromGuy’s Hospital.*

When Cooper’s nevey cut for stone,His toils were long and heavy ;

This patient quicker parts has shown,He soon cut Cooper’s nevey.

* See LANCET of last week, p. 49.

JOE BURNS’ LAST.

JoE BUr;rs, on receiving, last week,’aninvitation to one of Sir Astley Cooper’sconversazioni, erased, with the utmost promp-titude, the words, ° Sir Astley gives norefreshments, as the conversation will be

purely scientific," and sent back the card

with the following emendatory criticism :-’ As the conversation will be purely scien-tific, Sir Astley’s company must entertainthemselves at their own expense."