528

THE LANCET.

LONDON : SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1855.

ARCHDEACON HALE AND INTRA-MURAL INTERMENTS.

IT would appear that, with some persons, not the least evil

arising out of long-continued theological pursuits, is the certaininduction of an intellectual condition directly antagonistic tocareful scient fic research, and philosophic doubt; the " odiumtheologicum," which of all hatreds is the fiercest and most

uncompromising, is the moral manifestation of the same mentalstate which finds its intellectual development in rash assertion,hasty generalization, and constant perpetration of the "petitioprincipii." We are not inclined to justify the biting sarcasmof him who said that scientific theology was "a science in" which reason undertook to deduce conclusions from the pre-mises of faith," because in -whatever department of humanknowledge we attempt to bottom ourselves, as homely JOHNLOCKE would say, we must at last fall back upon certain

axiomatic truths, or matters of faith, which the mind receivesand assents to without the intervention of the reasoning facul-ties. Still there was a germ of truth in the reproach, andthere is doubtless a tendency in theologians to a confusedmethod of thinking upon every subject besides their own spé-cialit6; to this intellectual twist we attribute the anti-geologic,the mesmeric, and the homoeopathic vagaries of learned divines;and in the same way we account to ourselves for the extra-

ordinary fact, that a highly-educated man has been found, inthe middle of the nineteenth century, to uphold the pestiferouspractice of intra-mural burial, upon grounds which he has theboldness to call scientific, moral, and religious!The Venerable Archdeacon HALE thought proper, last May,

to take advantage of his temporary possession of the ear of theassembly of clergy at the Archidiaconal Visitation, in order toadvocate the cause he loves-" intra-mural burial." How far

he succeeded in transferring his own opinions to the minds ofhis auditors we are not in a position to say, but as there wasmuch in his charge which appealed to clerical prejudices and ’,modes of thinking, many, doubtless, went away satisfied thatsepulture in cemeteries is uoascieaatifc, irnnaorccl, and-irreligious,while the profundity of their convictions on this head would be

notably strengthened by the reiterated lamentations of thereverend gentleman on the score of pecuniary loss to the metro-politan incumbents and their understrappers, an argument, theforce of which is felt alike by layman and priest.The charge consisted of three parts-first, a history of the

legislation on this subject, which we find interspersed with suchinterested reflections as, "that it (i. e., the legislation) has

destroyed the common-law right of burial in the churchyard,which has been heretofore the right of every inhabitant of a"parish," "that it has wholly impoverished some important"benefices ;" that it has transferred the control of the church-

"yards from the bishop of the diocese to the Secretary ofState;" and " that it has deprived families and individuals" of their vested rights of burial;" while the long list of com-plaints winds up with the coolest begging of the question atissue imaginable, lamentation being made that " any member" of Government should have been invested with the power to

inflict such private and public injury. " The second portion

of the discourse is an attempt to prove the innocuousness of the

practice of intra-mural burial upon chemical and physiologicalprinciples, and contains some of the grossest mis-statements offact we have ever met with, as well as some of the richest

specimens of the clerical method of reasoning extant. We are

informed that human remains " are not foreign to the soil, nor" uncongenial with its nature, nor incapable of assimilationwith it," from which unmeaning statement we are expectedto infer that choked-up graveyards in the heart of -large citiesare extremely wholesome; and should we revolt from this con-clusion, our wavering opinion is to be brought round by theattenuated definition of organic death, which tells us that " it" is the analysis and dissolution of bodies, which have done the" service for which they were appointed," such trifles as sul-phuretted, carburetted, and phosphuretted hydrogen, with ataste of ammonia, and other indeterminate abominations, beingof course a great deal too nasty to enter into an Archdeacon’sdefinition of death. Pursuing the subject, it is remarked as afact not unimportant, that " of all the organic beings, from the" minutest insect that floats in air to the leviathans of the deep,and the beasts of the forest, from the first development of" life in the simplest organism to its full perfection in man," man alone is buried," and we are invited to contemplate this

distinction between man and the brute creation, together withthe harmlessness of the non-sepulture of beasts in general, pre-paratory to acquiescence in the proposition, that of mankindalso omitted this rite, the result would be, as Mr. TOOTS

would say, "of no consequence," as far as health is concerned.As well might we cease to cook because man alone cooks. As

an instance of what the Archdeacon can do in the way of rash

assertion, we have the following:-‘’ It is certain that the con-" tact with putrescence does not generally injure health or" shorten life. It has upon the body sensible effects easily" shaken off, and of no long continuance; nor would, I believe,"the most thoughtful professor deem it necessary to warn his"young pupils that they must prepare themselves, in their’’ attendance in the dissecting-room, for the hour of sickness,and hazard the loss of health." Now everyone who has

studied anatomy in the larger dissecting-rooms of this metro-polis, or in the crowded anatomical rooms at Edinburgh, mustbe able to call to mind numerous instances of diligent students,who, by the end of the session, have been the subjects of re-

peated attacks of diarrhoea, and have become blanched andseriously out of health by constantly inhaling volatilized

putridities ; while there are cases on record of persons whohave, in the act of digging graves, been struck down with a.

putrid fever, which has terminated fatally in twenty-four, forty-eight, or seventy-two hours. Mr. CHADWICK, we have been

told, collected the statistics relating to sextons, and found themto live only, on an average, thirty-six or thirty-eight years; wecannot vouch for the correctness of his figures, but we are quitejustified in saying that even the employment of a sexton is notwithout its own peculiar dangers, and still more surely it maybe laid down, that even to young men who are well-fed, and inall the vigour of youth, habitual presence in the dissecting-roomis a fruitful source of ill-health, if not of something worse.

In discussing the nature of the changes brought about inbodies after burial, and the mode in which the soil and atmo-

sphere become affected, two very convenient assumptions aremade-viz., that ammonia and carbonic acid are the sole pro-ducts of whatever chemical changes take place, and that these

529

THE LATE MEMORIAL OF ASSISTANT-SURGEONS IN THE CRIMEA.

substances are positively innocuous in any such amount as is

yielded by a churchyard. Anyone who had really endeavouredto make himself acquainted with the chemistry of the subject,would have known that ammonia and carbonic acid are the final

stages of organic decomposition, and that between these ulti-mate results and the commencement of putrefaction large quan-tities of gases, of the most deleterious nature, are evolved; buteven supposing that ammonia only was produced, experiencetells us as medical men, if Archdeacon HALE is ignorant of thefact, that the habitual inhalation of ammoniacal air is a powerfulcause of predisposition to inflammations, especially of the

respiratory organs, while we have masses of evidence of themost satisfactory description to show that the atmosphere must,for purposes of health, preserve a constant relation between itsconstituents, which admits of only the most fractional varia-tion. It is very easy to endeavour to throw the oa2ss probandiof particular cases of disease or death, produced by the vicinityof graveyards upon the shoulders of sanitary reformers; andknowing, as the author of the charge must, the extreme diffi-culty of eliminating the influence of all other causes of disease,and assigning its exact share, and no more, to burial-groundemanations, it is still easier to chuckle at the intricacy of theproblem, and imagine himself victorious. The influence, how-ever, of even Archdeacon HALE is not likely to turn a practicalpeople, like ourselves, from obvious improvements, albeit thatbad chemistry and worse philosophy are made ancillary to hisretrograde design.The third part of the charge embodies the moral and religious

views of the writer in relation to the subject. We are not in-

clined to discuss this part in exten80, because it is hardlygermane to the objects of our journal; but we would remark,that if the clergy are desirous of drawing the bonds betweenthemselves and their parishioners tighter, they had betterbegin at the earlier end of life and educate; let them workamongst the living, and leave the dead to others.

.

WE publish ’elsewhere a letter on the subject of the recentmemorial from assistant-surgeons in the Crimea. We

should be very sorry to assume that the writer who speaksso intemperately in the name of the assistant-surgeons,speaks with their authority. Those who desired to slightthe claims of the assistant-surgeons would, we fear, find

some justification in the minds of thoughtful men by ex-

hibiting this letter as an example of the temper and judg-ment of those who drew up the memorial. We will not

do the assistant-surgeons this injustice. Nor do we think it

Necessary to repel in words the petulant and ridiculous impu-tation conveyed against the independent character of this

journal. It must be equally unnecessary for every reader ofTHE LANCET to be informed, that neither in the article fromwhich the writer professes to quote, nor elsewhere, have weever spoken of the assistant-surgeons " in a contemptuous andslighting manner." In the few remarks which we think it

desirable to make upon the subject of the document purportingto be the memorial of the assistant-surgeons in the Crimea, itmust not therefore be understood that we are replying to aletter which we are sure the assistant-surgeons would not wishto be taken as the exposition of their views. We address our-

selves to the question on its general merits. It will be ad-

mitted that we are in a position to regard the claims put for-

ward in this memorial with more impartiality than they arewhose immediate interests are concerned. And it will, pro-bably, be also conceded, that we possess some qualificationsfor judging of the style and manner in which those claims areset forth. Now, that the assistant-surgeons really have sub-stantial grievances, ive are so far from disputing, that we have,on many occasions, pointed them out, even before they them-selves had called for redress. It is no new principle of THELANCET to contend for the preference of merit and service overmere seniority; and we should hardly be so inconsistent as torefuse to apply this principle to our brethren in the army. It.

was only on the 8th of September last that, when speaking ofthe memorial of the surgeons, we reiterated our deep convic-tion upon this subject in the following terms:-

’’ The first position, that those who have undergone all thehardships of a campaign should be entitled to promotion invirtue of those sufferings; and that no circumstances shouldinterfere with the claims of those who have borne the heatand burden of the day, is incontrovertible. There can be nodoubt of the necessity and expediency of some fixed principlebeing ertablished by which promotions should be regulated."

If we entertain and express this opinion in reference to thepromotion of surgeons, we are not likely to apply a differentrule to the promotion of assistant-surgeons. But whilst we are

thus deeply impressed with the conviction that merit andservice should constitute the first claim to promotion, wemust still be careful how radical changes in the administa-tion of the Medical Department are assented to, lest we

incur the risk, by inconsiderate haste, of defeating the veryobject in view. It does not follow, for example, that

because many young men have served their country well,and nobly endured great hardships in the Crimean campaign,that the claims of others, who have seen years of irksomeand dangerous service elsewhere, should be altogether post-poned. It is no fault of many of these latter if they too didnot serve in the Crimea. They may have felt it as a grievousinjustice to themselves that they were not selected for active

duty where superior hardships were to be borne, and greaterdistinction to be earned. There are not a few assistant-surgeonsof some years’ standing, and great experience, who complainthat young and untried men, fresh from the hospitals, shouldhave been preferred to themselves. They, at least, are notprepared to admit that, because an assistant-surgeon is veryyoung, and has served in the Crimea, that he is therefore so verymeritorious that he ought to be promoted over their heads. At anyrate, the scheme of promotion asked for in the memorial is so veryindefinite, or so vaguely expressed, that we cannot wonder atthe observation of Dr. ANDREW SMITH, that the memorialistscould not know what would be the effect of that for which

they were asking. This brings us to the consideration of themanner in which the memorialists have brought forward theirdemands. Upon this subject we can only say that the opinionwe before expressed is unaltered. The document was not

drawn up with that regard to clearness in statement and logicalsequence which was necessary to ensure for it the attention and

respect of the authorities to whom it was addressed. The

perusal of it could not fail to excite the suspicion that it wasnot the deliberate expression of the sentiments of all the

assistant-surgeons in the Crimea. We cannot bring ourselvesto believe that any considerable proportion of the senior

assistant-surgeons attached their names to this memorial It

was because we felt this-because we were satisfied that all

530

MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.

those who were but ill-disposed towards the Medical Depart-ment would only make an unfair use of this document, inorder to discourage claims that were set forth so inadequatelyand so indistinctly, that we expressed a hope that the assistant-surgeons who took part in the proceeding would revise thismemorial, and express more distinctly the exact nature of the

grievances which they wished to have redressed.We say it with every feeling of good-will towards the

gentlemen who forwarded this memorial, that they not

only commit an injustice towards Dr. ANDREW SMITH, if

they do not give him credit for having been actuated by themost sincere desire to promote their welfare when he returnedit without submitting it to Lord PANMURE, but that they com-mitted a political blunder in not destroying a document whichhis superior experience and sagacity convinced him could onlybe prejudicial to its authors. Although not quite agreeingwith Mr. PEEL, that they were guilty of a " grave impropriety"in transmitting their memorial to the newspapers, we are

quite sure they were guilty of a great mistake.Should the assistant-surgeons re-consider this subject, we

earnestly trust that they will state their grievances, and theremedies they wish for, in a manner that will not admit ofmisconstruction. We advise them, above all things, to dis-

tinguish clearly those marks of inferiority as to grade, pay,furlough, promotion, and honours which attach to the wholemedical staff, as compared with the other branches of the

military service. If these be stated forcibly, yet temperately,we have no doubt the assistant- surgeons will obtain the

sympathy and support of the public and of the press; and it issurely unnecessary for us, who have during so many years un-ceasingly advocated the removal of all those unjust burdens bywhich our military medical brethren are oppressed and de-

graded, to promise our most cordial and energetic assistance.Such men as THOMSON, READE, O’CALLAGHAN, and a host ofothers, surely deserve honours and rewards not inferior to thosewhich are lavished even upon a WINDHAM. That class of

their grievances, then, which regards the relation of the

medical officers to the other branches of the army, should be

considered apart. Those grievances which relate to the rulesof promotion amongst themselves, to the internal economy andadministration of the Medical Department, should in no waybe mixed up with any complaints of a general character. Let

these be stated distinctly, specifically, with temperate argu-ment, and the assistant-surgeons need not fear that their

representations will be treated with neglect or disrespect.

A MOVEMENT has been originated for the purpose of promi-nently drawing the public attention to the important nature ofthe appointment of Medical Officers of Health, which the localauthorities of London will shortly have to make, under Section132 of the "Act for the better Local Management of the

Metropolis." In order that the sanitary government of Londonbe efficiently organised, and that the largest possible share ofpublic benefit be derived from the system of management now

being inaugurated, it is absolutely necessary that highly-quali-fied persons be appointed to fill the chief sanitary appointmentunder each Vestry and District Board. To secure uniformityof result, it is indispensable that an uniform plan be adoptedfor performing the duties devolved on the new functionariesby the Act of Parliament, and that a general system be

organized by the local authorities, for testing the qualificationsof candidates, and securing for well-qualified men the assurancethat their claims to notice will receive due consideration. At

present the vestries have neither experience nor precedent to

guide their judgment, and the most honest men may make amistake in the performance of a novel duty, for which theyhave been prepared neither by previous habit nor special edu-cation.

Upon the manner in which the first appointments are madewill entirely depend the future position and character of thefunctionaries to whom the superintendence of the public healthand the suggestion of measures for the prevention of diseaseare to be entrusted. The application of medical science andpractical skill to the prevention of disease is even more impor-tant to the general community than curative medicine, and agrand opportunity is now offered for endeavouring to placethis branch of our art upon its proper footing. If, indeed, theduties of Medical Officer of Health are to be confined to the

inspection of nuisances and the mere tabulation of the causesof mortality, any man of moderate attainments and diligencemay soon learn to perform them as a matter of routine.

If, on the other hand, these officers are to be the advisers and

guides in sanitary matters of the local authorities,-if they areto possess each in his district a similar influence and positionin reference to sanitary subjects with that so ably and effi-

ciently held by the late Medical Officer of Health to the City,- if, above all, this new organization is to be made available,not only for the application of well-known sanitary truisms,but for the purpose of carrying on further investigations intothe causes of preventible sickness and premature death, of re-

ferring its precise result on the human constitution to eachcause of insalubrity, and thus of adding largely to our know-ledge of the causation of disease, and of giving precision to theemployment of the means adopted for the amelioration of thepublic health,-then indeed a high order of men ought to bechosen to fill these appointments. Fully to realize these ideas,each Medical Officer of Health ought to be well versed in vitalstatistics and hygiene, a well educated and practical physician,and acquainted with at least the general principles of chemicaland physical science; above all, he should possess sufficient

logical acumen to enable him rightly to distinguish the post hocfrom the propter hoc, and enough judgment to decide betweencoincidences and consequences.A committee of medical practitioners, consisting of aspirants

to the new appointments, and of others interested in the pro-gress of sanitary science, has, we are informed, been established,for the purpose of considering this subject. It is their inten-

tion to invite a general meeting of such members of the medicalprofession as are disposed to aid their public-spirited effortsto promote a cause fraught with so much good both to thepublic and the profession.

IT cannot be denied that many parts of London are remark-

ably deficient in breathing-places for its vast population. Lookto any other capital of Europe, and it will be found that theparks and gardens form some of the most central and con-spicuous places of recreation for the people. The Lungs ofLondon" are said to be the parks, and these are not as lungsshould be, in the very centre of the circulation, but on the out-skirts of the body. No greater blessing could be conferred

531

THE LATE TRAGEDY AT BRIGHTON.

upon the community than an extension of their means of enjoy-ing the salubrity of intra-urban places of quiet and resort.The authorities of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital are, it has

been stated, desirous of obtaining Smithfield for the pur-

pose of making gardens and pleasure-grounds for the con-

valescent patients of that noble institution. To this proposi-tion it appears to us that not a single objection of a validnature has been urged. It is true that the opponents of anyamelioration of the condition of those pent-up in the alleys andcourts of this great metropolis have objected to the planting ofSmithfield as a garden, on the ground that it would be coveredwith smoke and dust. These objectors take Finsbury-squareas a model on which to sustain their opposition. They havebeen singularly unfortunate in their selection, because Finsbury-square is the most inappropriate, and certainly the most ineli-

gible model that they could adduce. This square is said to

demonstrate most forcibly the ineligibility of an urban site fora garden. The trees, say these objectors, are covered withsmoke and dust, and exhibit anything but an approximation tothe vegetation of a rural district. They may not be altogetherwrong; but it must not be forgotten that the West side of

Finsbury-square is one of the greatest thoroughfares in themetropolis. Owing to the negligence of the local authorities,the trees may not be so green, nor the walks so private, as insome rural district ten miles from London. But if Smithfield

should be made into a garden, how far would these objectionshold good? We believe not at all. Finsbury-circus, not astone’s-throw from the square, is almost rural. Charterhouse-

square looks pleasant amid the surrounding dinginess. Wherehave you finer walks or finer trees than in Lincoln’s-Inn-fields,or in the gardens of Gray’s-Inn ?-those noble gardens whichare still almost as rural as when the great Lord BACON com-

posed some of the noblest of his Essays, under the shades ofthe now ancient trees. The fact is, that the struggle for thepossession of Smithfield is between the commercial and the

sanitary competitors-between those who would make a greatcentral market of it, and those who would convert it into acontributor to the health of the inhabitants of a crowded city.To those who, like Mr. Pluralist HALE, regard intra-mural

interments as conducive to health, and, consequently, crowdingtogether as most beneficial, any attempt to make Smithfield aCity garden would be condemned as subversive of the public in-terests. But by the more enlightened-those, in fact, wholook on over-crowding as an evil, intra-mural interment pro-ductive of disease, and open spaces for the multitude as pro-ductive of good, the making Smithfield a place of health

and recreation for the people will be regarded as a blessingto the over-worked and over-crowded population of the Cityof London.

Correspondence.

THE LATE TRAGEDY AT BRIGHTON.

" Audi alteram partem."

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-Although I have taken a lively interest in all the pro-ceedings connected with the melancholy affair at Brighton, aswell as in the various contributions that have appeared in thepublic prints regarding it, I have abstained from taking anypart in the controversy, in justice to the professional witnesses

engaged in the examination, trusting that we should be favouredwith some more full, correct, and authentic statement of thefacts of the case than it is possible to glean from the variouscontradictory and irrelevant reports that have from time totime been laid before the public, upon which it would seem im-possible to come to any definite conclusion.

In the meantime, however, the specious and imposing con-tribution of Dr. Hall, which appeared in your columns lastweek, calls for examination and comment, in order to preventerroneous impressions being formed in the minds of those notconversant with the whole circumstances. In order, however,to avoid ambiguity, I must shortly recapitulate the most im-portant points in the history of the case.On the 2nd of November, Dr. Franck and his son, Hugo,

aged seventeen, strangers to Brighton, took up their abode inthe Albion Hotel; they went to bed without exciting any sus-picion or remark. About six o’clock the following morningDr. Franck precipitated himself from the window, and waskilled, evidently a case of suicide. The son, Hugo, was foundin bed, dead, but still warm, lying on his back; his face waslivid; features not distorted; arms and hands lying placidlyby the side of the body; knees slightly bent, and the bed-clothes unruffled-everything contradicting the existence of astruggle having preceded death. A silk scarf was tied roundhis neck, but " so lightly that two fingers could easily be in-serted between it and the neck;" and when the scarf was un-tied no mark of violence or pressure was found to exist under it.

This was the amount of the direct evidence laid before thejury by the medical witness, Dr. Carter, (Mr. Blaker, who wasalso present at the examination of the body, not having been-called.) Nothing was said as to the existence of any bottlesor paper packages being sought for in the room, as indicativeof poison having been employed, nor any examination of thebody made in order to discover the existence of previous dis-ease,-of the heart for instance. Dr. Carter, however, tried tobleed from the arm, while Mr. Blaker "performed artificialrespiration," in order to restore animation, and the body was" a good deal pulled about" by them.Having made this statement to the jury, Dr. Carter said

that he then " reflected whether the act had proceeded fromhis own hand or that of another," having already made up hismind that it was a case of violent death, and then went on toprove to the jury, in a very elaborate manner, how that thefather could murder his son, without leaving any trace of hisagency, by certain ways and means that such a learned man asDr. Franck was likely to be acquainted with, and gave hisopinion that he had really done so. Whether Dr. Carter wasjustified in taking up such a position on the evidence adduced,I must leave your readers to judge. But the jury returned averdict according to evidence, that Hugo Franck" was foundstrangled, but whether by his own hand or that of anotherthere is no evidence to show." No post-mortem examinationof the body was thought necessary, the coroner, the medicalwitness, and the jury, seeming quite satisfied with the resultof the inquiry.That the public did not feel so satisfied is evident from the

many letters communicated to the newspapers, &c., from themost various and influential quarters ; and the friends werenot satisfied, for we learn that they requested Mr. Blakeragain to examine the body, to see if no further light could bethrown upon the melancholy affair. Nothing seems to haveresulted from this examination, however, although it is to beregretted that Mr. Blaker did not give the result to the public.

Here, then, the matter rested, and the most common expe-rience must have regretted the paucity of evidence adduced,and that the medical witness should have hazarded such an

opinion upon it; an opinion, moreover, involving a theory sowild and extravagant that the most overwhelming amount offacts could alone justify him in urging it upon a jury.But Dr. Hall now informs your readers that he has discovered

the link that was wanting in the evidence ; and certainly, ifhis facts are to be trusted, the mystery is indeed solved. Ifear, however, that he has been too hasty in his conclusions, andaccepted as evidence of the existence of violence precedingdeath, what was but the result of post-mortem interference inthe performance of artificial respiration. At any rate, whileDr. Hall is silent as to the means he employed in order to avoidthis mistake, I am justified in calling it in question. In takinghis " Notes" seriatim, it will be seen that the phenomena hedescribes and portrays in his beautiful sketch are exactlywhat we would look for as the result of the operation of arti-ficial respiration.

Dr. Hall states that he examined the bodv at the under.taker’s on the evening of the 5th of November, two days after