840

the last five years, without experiencing a single failure. Otherwise I would notoffer the plan to the notice of the profes-sion, I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

. JAMES H. HORNE,Surgeon, &c.

5, Gerrard Street, Sollo,August 23rd,1834.

JAMES H. HORNE,Surgeon, &c.

NEW INSTRUMENT FOR CRUSHING STONE

IN THE BLADDER.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,—The readiness you evince, upon

’all occasions, to insert in the pages of

your valuable Journal remarks on anysubject of interest connected with the

profession, is too well known to requirefrom me a lengthened apology for request-ing a small space in an early number ofTHE LANCET for the following brief ac-count of a newly-invented lithontriptic in-strliment, which was exhibited some weekssince at this hospital, by a Mr. SamuelOfford, of Stowmarket, a young man ofconsiderable mechanical genius.You will, in all probability, Sir, recollect

having noticed in your Journal, twelvemonths since, a very clever instrument,invented by the same person, intended tosupersede the employment of the bed incommon use. It consisted of a guard forsteadying the percussor; and so con-

structed that a hammer, on the principleof the common gun-lock, was attached.The instrument was tried upon a deadsubject, and afterwards upon a patient, atGuy’s Hospital. The result of the latter

experiment, I believe, was not very satis-factory, in consequence of the percussorbeing so small as to admit of the free

escape of the urine. It was also slightlydefective in the beak. The zeal of themechanic appears to have suffered nocheck from these certainly trifling defects,but rather renewed energy, being fullysatisfied in his own mind that the use ofthe guard would, sooner or later, be pre-ferred to the bed. The accompanyingrude sketch may serve to give a slightidea of the instrument. It is a very con-siderable improvement upon the originalplan; and in no point perhaps more sothan in the pcsition of the hammer;which, instead of describing a part of acircle, as the one on the gun-lock princi-ple, is made to pass in the same line as thepercussor is placed, so that the extremityof the female pait of the percussor re-ceives the concussion of the hammer di-

rectly on its centre, not obliquely, as mustbe the result from the action of the lock.The instrument, upon the whole, exhibits

!

an elaborate piece of mechanism. Mynumerous avocations prevented me fromforwarding this paper to your office sometime since; and, moreover, 1 was ledto believe that the instrument wouldhave been introduced to the attention of

your readers by more competent hands.I have, however, looked in vain for a no-tice of it in the pages of THE LANCET.

I have the honour to remain, Sir,Your obedient servant,

HORATIO BLOOMFIELD.London Hospital, Aug. 18, 1834.

We intended to give an engravingof the instrument, from the sketch for-warded by Mr. Bloomfield ; but, on fur-ther consideration, we feel satisfied thatno useful purpose could be served by thatprocedure, as it would be impossible, fromthe representations we could place beforeour readers, to enable any person to ma-

nufacture the instrument with correct.

ness. "Elaborate" mechanism cannot thus

be copied. We venture to suggest to Mr.Bloomfield that it would be better to havecareful drawings lithographed of all partsof the apparatus, accompanied by exactdescriptions ; and in such form that theplate could be transmitted by post,on application to Mr. Offord, to anysurgeon who was desirous of forming hisown judgment as to the practical va-lue of the instrument. Should such a

plate be prepared, we will, as journalists,with pleasure make the circumstanceknown to our readers; and Mr. Offordwill, with equal pleasure doubtless, as amanufacturer, undertake the useful andprofitable duty of receiving orders for hisi_nvention.-ED. L.

HORATIO BLOOMFIELD.

THE LANCET.

London, Saturday, Sept. 6, 1834.

MR. BLOOMFIELD ON A NEW LITHONTRIPTIC INSTRUMENT.

A CORRESPONDENT who has signed hisletter " ViNDEX," has addressed us in a

spirit of anger concerning the evidence ofSir HENRY HALFORD, published in ourlast Number. " What," he asks, " is

" your object, what can be your motive," for thus misrepresenting the evidence of" a man who is esteemed by the aristo-

" cracy, who is respected by the profes-" sion, and who is honoured by the Fel-" lows of his College? Is it not a scan.

841

"dalous and atrocious libel to put into { :the mouth of a man words which he

never uttered, and thus render him

" odious in the eyes of all those personswho are deceived by your statements" and misrepresentations "We are pleased with this attack. The

disagreeable task in which we are engagedis disburdened of no small portion of itsirksomeness, on discovering that the

friends of Sir HENRY HALFOnD feel in-

dignant at the supposition that we haveattributed, falsely attributed, testimony tothe renowned Baronet, of which that wor-

thy person is himself the veritable author.What! is the evidence of such an odious

character, that it would be a base act toassert that it had been delivered by thePresident of the College of Physicians? i

But we do not deny that it would be

highly dishonourable either to allege or toinsinuate that any respectable physicianhad tendered the answers which we have

ascribed to Sir HENRY HALFORD, if theyhad not actually been given by him-aye,to the very syllable and letter. And here

let " VINDEX " take his answer; here let

him find his consolation in the fact, towhich we pledge the character of thisjournal, that our report was strictly accu-rate and faithful, and if he be not satis-

fied with this, we advise him at once toconfer with Sir HENRY, and endeavour toextort from that ingenious personage, if

lie can, a denial of the accuracy of a sin-

gle statement which we have advanced.

So so ! the FELLOWS wince, do they,under this exposure of their misdeeds ? It

is high time that they were subjected toa little of that torture which they haveso liberally bestowed on others, and, sofar as we are concerned, the resolutionis formed that the rod shall not be spared.But we are at the same time resolved

that it shall not be applied unjustly." ViNDEx," we fear, is not an over-

shrewd observer. He evidently does not

know the intellectual and moral pecu-liarities of his associates.

In the evidence printed at the conclu-sion of the leading article in the last LAN-CET, it was stated that Sir HENRY HAL-

FORD had been asked " whether the Col-

" lege had any reason to doubt the le-

" gality of the by-law which restrictedthe admission of candidates for the fel-

" lowship to the graduates of Oxford and" Cambridge;" and that he replied, " I" take it to be an election, and quite at" the option of the College. If a person" is once licensed, they may take that

" person into a fellowship whenever they" please." Afterwards he stated, that thePresident or any one of the Fellows had

the right of proposing a Licentiate for

admission.

Had the questions stopped here, the

profession, in the absence of informationderived elsewhere on the subject, mighthave concluded that the College was a

very liberal institution, and that the pro-posing and the electing were matters

of every-day occurrence. A statute was

enacted shortly after the expiration of

the year 1765, authorizing Fellows to pro-pose Licentiates for election into the order

of candidates. Hence the witness was

asked the following question, and the an-swer is well worthy of remark; it ex-

hibits, at one view, the constitution of

the College, and the mind of the witness.Que8. "How many Licentiates have been

elected into the College, on the proposal ofa FELLOW, from the first passing of thatstatute down to the present time ?Ans. 11 I do not know that any one has

been elected, but I do not know 1vhy theyhave not been elected. I know very wellthat one was proposed a very short timeago, and that he would have been elected,but he died before the period of election

could come on."Thus, in a period of upwards of sixtyyears, none of the Licentiates were ad-mitted into the College by means of the11 dispensing statute" which was so gene-rously framed for their honour and bene-

842

fit ! Not a solitary one ! Subsequently, SirHENRY stated that he " did not know the

"reason which prevented a Licentiate from

" being proposed ; hut," the wily Presi-dent added, " he is to be submitted to an

" examination, and that might deter per-" sons from wishing to be proposed."Still, he was afterwards obliged to con-fess, that the examinations for Fellow and

Licentiate were PRGCISELY SIMILAR! The

Licentiate, then, having already submittedto whatever scrutiny the College chose toinstitute, how much meanness of spiritwas there in the insinuation that the Li-

centiates refused to be proposed by Fel-lows, because they dreaded an examina- ’:

tion,-an examination which they had

previously passed and laughed at! But

it has happened more than once, that the

proposition made by one Fellow for ad-mitting a Licentiate into the order of can-didates, has not-such an extraordinaryset of Fellows have they been—even foundanother Fellow to second it, from which

cause it has fallen profitless to the ground.The gentleman who "would have beenelected" was Dr. PEARSON, but Sir HENRYtells us that the unfortunate gentlemandied before the election "could come on."

The proposal for admitting that gentle-man to an examination, with a view to his

obtaining the fellowship, was made at atime when he was upwards of seventyyears of age-at a time, possibly, when itwas known that his enfeebled brain could

not endure the pressure of a classical

cramming, and we believe it is an admittedfact that Dr. PEARSON expired in the at-

tempt to render his ancient understand-

ing capable of undergoing a scrutiny inclassical and elementary knowledge. No-

thing could be more wanton or cruel thanto require that a physician of respecta-bility and repute, who had been engagedin the practice of his profession duringnearly half a century, should submit to anexamination conducted by the compara-

tively boyish censors of the College. It

was an act of satanic barbarity, the con-

summating of which was prevented onlyby the death of the venerable man whowas to become the subject of it.

Sir HENRY was next questioned re-

garding the case of Dr. WELLS:—" Areyou aware," said the chairman, " of an" attempt made by Dr. WELLS, a Licenti-

" ate, to find admission into the College in" 1797-8?"—" I am," was the answer; andhere we have an account of the circum.

stances connected with that attempt :-

Ques. "Are you aware of the objectionthat was taken to Dr. Wells’s first appli-cation, viz. that no notice had been givento the fellows of an intention to proposehim ?

Ans. "It is a standing order amongst us,that no fellow can make a proposal withoutfirst of all communicating it to the presi-dent. If there was a want of form in doingthat, the fellow who proposed him wasanswerable for that omission.

Ques. " Is there any mention, in thestatute in question, of notice to the fellowsbeing necessary?

Ans. "It is a general rule that everything proposed should, in courtesy, bementioned to the president first of all.

QMM. "Are you not aware that, snbse-quent to this application by Dr. Wells, theCollege passed a statute, that notice insuch case should be necessary ; admitting,therefore, by passing such a statute, thatto give notice was not the rule previous toits passing?

Ans. " It should seem to imply that; butit is matter of courtesy, acted on, thoughnot expressed, perhaps.

Ques. " Are you aware that Dr. Wellsalleges that he actually did give notice?

Ans. "I am not aware of all the circum-stances of that case ; no judicial inquiry, Ibelieve, was held upon it.

Ques. "You were probably acquaintedwith Dr. Wells ?

Ans. " Yes.Ques. " Probably you considered him a

person of the highest honour and charac-ter ?

Aras. " I firmly believe so.Ques. Therefore what he has himself

recorded you would believe to be correct ?Ans. " A man might take a false view

of his own case. I do not impugn his ho-nour or his virtue in any respect.

Ques. " You admit that, after Dr. Wellshad been proposed, before the next anni-

845

versary of the College, the College thoughtit necessary to pass a by-law, expresslyproviding, that in all cases of proposinglicentiates to be admitted as fellows, aquarter of a year’s notice should begiven ?

A2z,g. " Yes. The comitia majora ordi-naria are held quarterly.

Ques. " Does not that seem to imply thatno such notice was required by the pre-vious statutes of the College ?

flns. 11 Perhaps it came under the gene-ral head of the courtesy that belonged tothe transaction of business with regard tothe president; but if it were imputed tohim as a fault that this courtesy was notpaid, then a written by-law was neces-Rarv tn make it t.1,P nrarttica in future.

(Ques. " Dr. Wells says, I proceed to

assert, that notice was given to the Col-lege of Dr. Pitcairn’s intended proposal.If the proper person for receiving it wasabsent from his duty, the fault lay withhim. Among the many illiberal circum-stances of the by-law for admitting licen-tiates to an examination is this: thatnoper-son can be proposed under it, except uponone day in the year, namely, at the generalmeeting of the College immediately afterMichaelmas. I had not been able, beforethe 20th of September, to ascertain whe-ther or not I could be proposed in 1797.Two days after this, and seven days beforethe meeting of the College, I went to thepresident’s house in London, to inform himof what was intended; being desirous that,although such a notification was not re-quired, it should not afterwards be saidthat an attempt had been made to surprisethe judgment of the College. I was toldthat he was in the country, at a consider-able distance from London, but that hewas expected to return in a day or two.Upon this I wrote a letter at his house,which I left there, to acquaint him withthe object of my visit. Three days after,however, I learned that he was still out oftown, and probably would not come to ittill the day preceding the meeting of theCollege. In consequence of this informa-tion, 1 immediately sent a letter to him inthe country, to make known what wasmeant to be done. On the same day Icalled upon the officer of the College whosebusiness it is to summon the fellows totheir meetings, and authorized him to ac-quaint those whom he should see that Iwas to be proposed for examination. I

gave the same information myself to onefellow, my colleague, Dr. George Fordyce.If I did not give it to more, this was fromfear lest the doing so might be regarded asan indirect solicitation of votes. Yet, not-withstanding all this supererogatory careto apprize the president and fellows of the

College of what was intended by ions, ofcairn, they were bold enough to .even to allow his proposal to procee,a ballot, on this pretence, among othei?that it had not been properly notified tothem.’ After reading this, which willbring the circumstances, perhaps, to yourrecollection, are you still of opinion thatno notice was given to the College ?

Ans. " I cannot pretend to contradictthat as a fact; but it ought to be recollectedthat it is the statement of a person whowas disappointed in an object, and there-fore I think the representation there oughtto be received with some little degree ofrantinncaution.

Ques. "Supposing thefacts here allegedto be correctly stated, would you then ad-here to the opinion that no notice wasgiven ?

Ans. " That is a matter that everbodycan decide as well as myself; if those aredocuments from which the inference is tobe drawn.

Ques. "Supposing those facts to be cor-rectly stated, would you still maintain thatno notice was given ?

Ans. 11 I could not, if that is all true. 1was asked, in the first instance, whether Ibelieved Dr. Wells to be a man of honourand credit; I do so; but I cannot be re-sponsihle for every statement made by Dr.Wells on a matter in which he was dis=

appointed., Qzteg. " On what ground was it that youstated that no notice was given ?

Ans. "I have no means of speaking toa fact of that kind ; I was not an officer ofthe College.

Ques. "Is there any record in the Col-lege to that effect?

Ans. " I do not know.Q2ces. " You are aware, perhaps, that

Dr. Wells was not even balloted for, butthat the Fellows moved the previous ques-tion ?

Ans. " The records of the College willstate that to be the fact if it is so.

Qxaes. "ls it not the fact, that subse-quent to this rejection of Dr. Wells, not asingle licentiate has ever been elected intothe College under that statute ?

Arts. " One was proposed the other day,and would, if he had not died, I firmly be-lieve, have been elected into the Collegeunder that statute. 1 have no hesitationin saying so, for it was unanimously re-ceived.

Ques. "That was the only case inwhich a licentiate has ever applied sincethat period ?

Ans. 11 I do not apprehend that any actof injustice is done to the individual by notgiving him the fellowship; he of course

has no right to demand it ; he has a right

842

fist ! Not or admission as a licentiate, andHEN-injustice is done if he does not re-

" _ e that according to his qualification ;sut, I apprehend, no Licentiate has aright to demand to be admitted a Fellow; and that would have governed my judg-ment, probably, in Dr. Wells’s case.

Ques. " They do not claim to be admittedas Fellows, but to be examined with aview to being admitted as Fellows?

Ans. "Yes; they have already under-gone that examination as Licentiates, andhave been admitted, and the College needsnot entertain any further demand fromthem.

Ques. "Do you call that a demandwhich is authorized by the existing sta-tutes of the College ?

Ans. " Yes, I do ; the College may makewhat conditions, in respect of a compliancewith those demands, it pleases.

QMM. "If a Fellow thinks proper to

propose a Licentiate to be examined, doyou call that a demand upon the part ofthe Licentiate proposed to be examined ?

Ans. "No, not exactly ; it is permittedto any Fellow to propose a person undersuch conditions; I do not call that a de-mand upon the part of the Licentiate.

We pass over a few questions in this

part of the examination, and come to

others which bear on the same subject :-

Ques. " There is another statute, whichallows the president, as a matter of fa-vour, to propose Licentiates for admissioninto the body of the College. When wasthat statute first passed ?

Ans. 11 I cannot tell the year; it hasbeen acted on LARGELY of late years.

Ques. " What is the form of the sta-tute ?

Bns. " That the President has the powerof proposing, every year, at his discretion,a person, of the number of Licentiates, tobe admitted a Fellow. I have been Pre-sident of the College fourteen years, andI think that seven or eight have been ad-mitted during that time from the numberof the Licentiates, and persons of all per-suasions, of all descriptions, of all re-

ligions.Ques. " How do you account for Licen-

tiates having been admitted, according tot’iis statute, on the proposal of the Presi-dent, and none having been admitted un-der the statute on the proposal of a Fellow ?

Ans. 11 I know not any reason, except-ing that, on the proposal of a Fellow, theLicentiate is to undergo an examination;on the proposal of the President, he is notexamined.

Ques. " Many have been admitted on

the proposal of the President, but noneon the proposal of a Fellow ?

Ans. " No.. One was proposed by theFellows the other day, hut he died beforethe ballot could take place."

The evidence just cited, maintains thecharacter of the portion which we had

previously published. It exhibits in a

most glaring point of view the tyrannyand misrufe which have so long disgracedthe College of Physicians, and scandalizedand insulted the profession. The Fellows

have always made a sport of the rights ofthe Licentiates, and have rioted in enjoy-ment because they were enabled to offer

insults to that body with impunity. No-

thing was ever more monstrous than theconstruction of the dispensing statute

by means of which Dr. WELLS most un.

wisely endeavoured to obtain admission

into the Fellowship. First, a Fellow wasto propose the Licentiate for the "order

of candidates ;" that proposal was to beseconded; and then it was to be carried bya majority ere the nominated party couldbe sure of the privilege of undergoiny anexamination before, in many instances,his juniors in age, and his inferiors in

medical attainments. In one case there

were no proposers, in another no second.

ers, and in both every technical objectionwas urged with avidity, in order to defeatthe object of the Licentiates. Naturallyenough, forty-nine out of every fifty of theLicentiates have always viewed this sta.tute with contempt and scorn, and wouldnot consent to the degradation of a se-cond examination,-would not admit the

right of the Fellows even to institute such

an examination,--and, accordingly, havenever troubled the " dignified Fellows "to make proposals for admitting them

into the class of " Candidates." But

mark the ingenuity of the devices of theCollege. See how aptly contrived havebeen the laws for effecting the subjuga-tion, the humiliation, and even the syco-phancy, of the licentiates. The President

845

has had the power of appointing Licentiates; " to the Fellowship; the Fellows themselves "have had the power of nominating and

electing Licentiates. By such a double- !-

faced project was it hoped to win over Ithat body,-to ensure their compliance vwith every infamous mandate, their qui- escence under every act of injustice,- 1because the contrivers foresaw that there t

would thus be viewed, in the distance, a remote chance of preferment, which might be attained through the favour either of President or Fellows. Poor Dr. PEARSON

was to have been rewarded for his fiftyyears’ patient endurance of wrong, but weare three times told by the supple Presidentthat " he died before the ballot could take

place."Already has it been seen that not a

single] Licentiate was admitted into the

College under the statute which enabledthe Fellows to nominate and examine the

members of that body. But what saysSir HENRY respecting the Presidential

prerogative? " I,-I,-the renowned Chief" of the College,-enjoy the power of caus-" ing Licentiates to be admitted without" examination. Have I not exercised my

" privilege under that statute most libe-" rally ?" " Truly, it has been acted onLARGELY of late years." LARGELY’ Largeand small are relative terms. What doesthe learned President mean, then, when hestates, that it has been acted on " largely?"We must appeal to the comprehensive mindof the witness for an explanation of the term" large," as regards its reference to the

admission of Licentiates to the Fellowship,- the Licentiates being, it will be recol-

lected, about three times as numerous asthe Fellows. Here, then, is his exposition."The statute has been acted on LARGELY

" of late years. I have been President of

" the College FOURTEEN years, and I

" think that SEVEN or EIGHT have been

" admitted during that time from the

" number of the Licentiates,—persons of

" all persuasions, of all descriptions, of" all religions."There ! Is not that a "large" admission?

Seven Licentiates in fourteen years,-half aLicentiate annually ! What idiot is it

who has talked of depositing the brains ofsome men in a nut-shell ? What an ap-

petite the Fellows must have for Licen-tiates ! Seven of them swallowed in a

brief Presidency of fourteen years ! But

the extent of the favour, and the highquality of the liberality, seem to have in-

spired the witness with feelings of gran-deur which are closely allied to those of

the Ant that thus commenced its poeticaddress to the Mole-hill :-

- - _ _ _ " Prodigious mountain!What eye can scan thy cloud-capped summit ?’

But the " large," the immense, ad.

mission of Licentiates would have been

still " larger (mirabile dictu .’) had not a" proposed candidate died, whereby theFELLOWS, generous souls were deprivedof the opportunity of examining a septa-genarian physician, and, fabricating one" Fellow" in the confined period of sixty-nine years. But the seven, the SEVEN,-

that bewitching, magical number ! We had

already the " Seven Wonders of the

World," but we have now a greater pro-digy in the seven Licentiates, whose con-version into Fellows occupied fourteen

years. The vastness of the number, how-

ever, is best shown by the fact, that theadmissions have embraced persons " of all

persuasions, of all descriptions, of all reli-gions." Really, Sir HENRY is a well-in-formed man; he is, in fact, precisely thebeing who should preside over such aCollege as the institution in Pall-Mall

East.

We cannot close this article without ap-

pending to it that portion of the examina-tion which related to the exercise of the

President’s power to recommend Licenti-

ates during the last two years, The ancient

846

otter; though slippery as an eel, was

speared at every point.

Ques. "Did you exercise the privilege,as President, of recommending a Licen-tiate for admission last year ?

Ans. " No, I did not last year; I havedone it within this last fortnight, and Iwill state, fairly (!) before the Committee,that if I had seen a person of extraordi-nary eminence who was entitled to that dis-

tinction, I would have done it last year.Ques. 11, Who is the person you have

selected for admission into the Collegethis year ?Ans. "Dr. Wilson Philip.Ques. "Was not Dr. Philip as cele-

brated for his discoveries last year as he isthis year ?Ans. " Perhaps he was; I believe he

was; he must be of ten years’ standing;he was about eleven years, perhaps;

Q2aes. " Was it not a fact that Dr. Philipwas as well known last year for his disco-veries as he is this year ?

,4ns. " 1 believe he was, but there was acontl’oversy going on at the time with aneminent person with whom he was en-gaged, and, perhaps, it was better to letthat be determined before he was pro-posed ! ! ! 1 1 "

EFFICACY OF VACCINATION AGAINST THE

WHOOPING-COUGH.

JUMER had already pointed out the effi-

cacy of vaccination in mitigating, if not

preventing, the extension of whooping-cough. The Italian physicians have latelymade some experiments on this subjectwhich deserve to he repeated on a moreextensive scale.M. GRIVA, since director of vaccinations

at Turin, in a memoir on variola (il seve-rino), says, that several cases of whooping-cough which have been much mitigatedby vaccination, are reported by Drs. FER-RARI and AMBROFUS. During the courseof the varicella the spasmodic cough gaveplace to a simple cough of slight bronchitis,and in some instances the disease was

very manifestly abridged. During an epi-demic of whooping-cough, Dr. BOCCARDIalso employed vaccination on very youngchildren, and found that the mortalitypreviously caused by the disease was im-mediately arrested; the cough assumed a

milder character, and was in most caseslimited to three or four weeks, whereasits ordinary duration is more than fortydays. Several similar facts have been

witnessed and reported by Drs. ÛRLAKDJ,MATTURA, FABLERONE, &c.

RECORD

OF THE

CONCOURS HELD AT PARIS,

IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST, 1834,

To supply the Vacancy in the Chair of

CLINICAL SURGERY,(Concluded from page 770.)

ANTERIOR CLAIMS OF THE CANDIDATES.

WE arrive at the fourth and concludingtrial of the competitors for this chair. Theappreciation of the " anterior titles " pos-sessed by the candidate, is founded on the

length of his services as an hospital sur-

geon, &c. ; on the discoveries or improve-ments which he may have made in the

science of medicine in general, but parti-cularly in that part or branch of it whichis connected with the chair in question;and, finally, on the number and value ofthe various works or papers he may have

published.We shall not attempt to give any very

extended particulars of the life or writingsof the principal candidates in the presentConcours, but intend to notice briefly theworks which they have published, point-ing out, as far as we may be able, the im-provements, &c., to which each may layclaim.

M. VELPEAU.

Distinguished in early life as a promis-ing pupil at a provincial hospital, M.

VELPEAU did not cease to support the

high character which he brought withhim to Paris. His career has been pecu-liarly rapid and brilliant. M. VELPEAUis still a young man, and has not, perhaps,been more than ten years occupied in theprofession; yet he has now attained thehighest professional honour and, more-