892

ments are said to have shown that it is both an effectual (?)and a harmless remedy for syphilis.

BERGENIN.

An investigation into the physiological and therapeuticalproperties of the various species of saxifrage, especiallyS. sibirica, cardifolia, and crassifolia, has been carried on forsome years by Drs. Garreau and Machelart. In the stemsof these plants there is, besides tannin, a hitherto unknownbody, which it is proposed to call " bergenin." It is obtainedby first extracting the tannin by means of ether, and thentreating the plant with pure alcohol. Bergenin is a whitishtranslucent substance, having the bitter taste of caffeinand quinine. It crystallises from alcohol in tetrahedralcrystals ; but from a watery solution, in prisms. It has noaction on polarised light. At the temperature of 140° C. itloses an atom of water, and runs into a colourless or amber-coloured fluid, which forms, when it cools, a translucentmass, and this gradually, by contact with the air, reassumesits lost atom of water, and is transformed into -tetrahedrons.At the temperature of 300° C. it is decomposed into a varietyof carbohydrates. It has a slightly acid reaction, and bydilute nitric acid it is transformed into oxalic acid. It formssoluble salts with potash, lime, baryta, and magnesia,Analysis shows that it has the formula C6H303HO. It issaid to be a valuable remedial agent, having a stimulant andtonic action on the nervous system. It is placed, thera-peutically, between salicylic acid and quinine. The partsof the plant which contain it possess the same properties,with, in addition, an astringent action, from the largequantity of tannin they contain.

ZD

HYOSCIN.

Landeberg has prepared from amorphous hyoscyamin apure alkaloid which he calls hyoscin, which forms a

crystalline compound with hydriodic acid, and an amorphouscompound with hydrochloric acid. The therapeutic valueof these compounds has been tested by Edlefsen and Illingat Kiel. They conclude that both salts are active and con-venient agents. The iodine compound is the more power- i

ful, perhaps because, being crystalline, it is purer. Their z,

action resembles that of atropine, but their value, in some ’,diseases, is greater. Larger doses can be given without pro- ’,ducing disturbance of vision, or dryness in the throat, and the sedative action is greater. Dryness in the throat is pro- ’Iduced by a milligramme and a half of the iodine salt. Toxicsymptoms (with three milligrammes) were very similar tothose caused by atropine-delirium, disturbed vision, drynessin the throat, and uncertainty of gait. Four times the dose ofthe chlorine compound did not cause these symptoms. Inwhooping-cough benefit was obtained in half the cases. Itwas used in six cases of asthma, and did good in all. Intwo cases of severe enteralgia the pain was at once relievedby it. In a case of epilepsy the number of attacks wasreduced.

HELLEBORE.

The dried roots of green and black hellebore are similarin appearance, and, according to Professor Herlant ofBrussels, who has investigated the characters and propertiesof authentic specimens, the only distinctions between themare the redder tint of the black hellebore root, and thegreater development of the circular fibres around the pith, theoily drops in the cortex of the green hellebore root. Analysisshows no difference in their active principle, except that itis rather more abundant with green hellebore. With both,certain inert roots may easily he confounded, especiallythose of Adonis vernalis, Polygala senega, and Actea spicata ;young roots of the latter resemble perfectly the roots ofhellebore. The only effective distinction is by the chemicalproduction of helleboretine, C14H2o05, which is obtained bythe decomposition of a glucoside contained in the root byboiling with dilute sulphuric or hydrochloric acid. Theblue-violet colour of the resulting body is distinctive. Thisreaction is equally serviceable in toxicological as in pharma-cological researches.

THE Governors of the Glamorgan and MonmouthInfirmary have resolved to proceed at once with the erectionof a new building, which is to cost jE23,000. The site of thebuilding is the gift of the Marquis of Bute, and sums of £ 1000have been contributed towards the cost of the proposed workby the Marquis, Lord Windsor, Lord Aberdare, Lord Trede-gar, Mr. J. H. Insole, and Mr. James Ware. The architectsare Messrs. Oames, Se ward, and Thomas, Cardiff.

THE VIVISECTION PROSECUTION.

THE QUEEN V. FERRIER.

THE hearing of the summons taken out by the Societyfor the Protection of Animals from Vivisection againstDr. Ferrier took place before Sir James Ingham, at Bow-street, on Thursday afternoon, Nov. 17th. Mr. Waddy, Q.C.,Mr. Besley, and Mr. Coleridge appeared on behalf of theprosecution; Mr. Gully, Q. C., and Mr. Houghton defended,There was a large attendance of the leading members ofthe profession.Mr. WADDY, Q.C., said that the Statute which Dr. Ferrier

was accused of having violated was the 39 and 40 Vic.,chap. 77. That Act provided that no experiments shouldbe performed on living animals except under certain re-

strictions, one of which was that a licence should bepreviously obtained. He was not going to say that theinitial operation was performed by Dr. Ferrier, but theanimals were kept alive by him in contravention of the Act.

Sir JAMES INGHAM said the Act contemplated two

things, the experiment and the object of it. He wishedthe learned counsel to state his view of the word " ex.periment," because it appeared that the surgical operationwas performed more than six months before the summonswas taken out.Mr. WADDY said there was no benefit to science what-

ever obtained by Dr. Ferrier while the monkey was underthe influence of anmsthetics. The experiment was not thetaking away of the brain and looking at the animal, buttesting the results afterwards. The question, then, waswhether the experiment was done and continued in violationof the restrictions imposed by law. The contention of theprosecution was that Dr. Ferrier ought to have got a cer-tificate. There was no grievance in the matter. If the de-fendant was carrying on experiments, it would be a mon-strous thing for the prosecutors to seize some little man andlet a great man like Dr. Ferrier pass. Even supposing thatthe first injury was done by the hand of another peron inFrance, and months afterwards a professional gentlemanin this country purchased the injured animal, and broughtit to this country to make experiments upon, could it be saidthat that was not an infraction of the law ? The learnedcounsel then described what took place at the InternationalMedical Congress, and stated that the further testing of themonkeys and the dog was adjourned to King’s College.

Sir JAS. INGHAM : Did they then perform an experimentcausing pain ?Mr. WADDY said he was not prepared to say they did at

that time; but that was not the question, because the ex-periment which caused pain was one continuing thing. Hiscontention was not a medical one. He simply raised a veryshort and narrow point-that Dr. Ferrier performed theseexperiments without first getting a certificate.Mr. CHAS. SMART ROY (one of the secretaries of the

Physiological Section of the International Medical Congress),examined by Mr. Coleridge : I was present at the meetingof the Section on Aug. 4th. The printed report in the Brutish,Medical Journal contains many errors. It is not whollyin accordance with my memory. Dr. Foster was in thechair. Dr. Goltz read a paper describing his experiments, partof which were to determine what degree of truth attached tothe assertion of Flourens that large partsof the brain of livinganimals might be removed without any apparent loss ofcerebral function resulting. Professor Ferrier spoke on thesame subject. He differed in certain points from ProfessorGoltz, and described experiments which he had performed,or assisted in performing, in which portions of thecerebral cortex had been removed from the brain of amonkey and paralysis ensued in certain muscles or limbs ofthe animal. I think he also stated that a dog and twamonkeys on whom experiments had been performed were tobe seen at King’s College. Subsequently between seventyand a hundred gentlemen went to the College to see them.Among those present were Dr. Michael Foster, ProfessorYeo, Professor Huxley, and Mr. Lee, but the majority wereforeigners. The servant produced the animals, and Dr.Ferrier described what had been done to them. I do notthink he touched the monkeys at all. One was lame, andthe deafness of the other was shown by a pistol being firedoff close to its ear without its manifesting any knowledge ofthe report.

0

893

Dr. MICHAEL FOSTER, examined by Mr. Bestey, gave anaccount of Dr. Ferrier’s statements at the International

Congress with regard to experiments on certain monkeyscarried out with antiseptic precautions. He said that informer years he had removed certain parts from the surfaceof the brain of monkeys ; that in consequence of the removalcertain definite conditions of the organs took place ; andthat those experiments had been corroborated by other ex-

perimentsby Professor Yeo according to the antiseptic system.here was no public announcement at the Congress that theanimals would be exhibited, but witness and others presentconsidered it desirable, and special arrangements were madefor the purpose. Dr. Carpenter, Professor Burdon Sanderson,Professor Rutherford, and other eminent gentlemen werepresent. It was typically a physiological meeting. Thefirst monkey brought in seemed to be perfectly natural, butit showed no sign of hearing when a pistol was fired behindits head. The other monkey was evidently lame. Theanimal was pinched, to show that its sensations were

unaffected. One or two gentlemen spoke on the subject,and then the meeting terminated. Afterwards it was ar-ranged that the dog and the paralysed monkey should bekilled, and the brains examined by an independent com-mittee, to ascertain what was the exact nature of theinjury.

Sir J. INGHAM : What is the specific experiment calcu-lated to produce pain which you impute to ProfessorFerrier? It is proved now that the two monkeys had beenoperated upon by Professor Yeo.Mr. WADDY said it was a continued experiment, and Dr.

Ferrier took a leading part in it.Sir J. INGHAM : I confess I think there must be some par-

ticipation in the original act in order to make it an actof cruelty within the meaning of the Act of Parliament ; andthere is not only no proof that Professor Ferrier had any-thing to do with the original act, but the proof, so far as itgoes, is to the contrary. If you have nothing more to adduceI must dismiss this summons. You may, if you thinkproper, take a case upon the point, because it is one of verygreat interest, no doubt. It is very important, I am sure,to magistrates that some clear definition òf the word " ex-periment

" should be laid down by superior authority.After some discussion,Dr. WAKLEY (Editor of THE LANCET) was called, and

at the request of Mr. Waddy produced the manuscript of thereport that appeared in that journal.Mr. WADDY : Who wrote that report ?Dr. WAKLEY : I have the permission of the gentleman to

give his name=Professor Arthur Gamgee, of Owens College,Manchester.Mr. WADDY asked for an adjournment in order that the

evidence of Professor Gamgee might be taken, but finallywithdrew the application, and the summons was dismissed.Mr. GULLY : As Professor Yeo has been mentioned, and

as it has been stated that this was an operation conductedBy him, I wish to state that he conducted it in strict accord-ance with the law, using anaesthetics, having a licence forthe operation, and having a certificate for keeping theanimals alive during the period they were kept alive.

Correspondence.BOUILLAUD AND APHASIA.

"Audi alteram partem."

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR, -In your notice of Bouillaud, the distinguished

French physician, I see no mention of his work on the

Brain, and especially his assertion that speech was connectedwith the anterior lobes. I have always regarded Bouillaudas the first who enunciated this doctrine. His work waswritten in 1825, and in this he says : "From the observa-tions which I have collected, and from a great number ofthose which I have read in authors, I believe myself able todeclare that it is in the anterior lobes of the brain that theruling principle of speech resides (que réside le principelégisluteur de parole). In looking through their works I seewith extreme satisfaction that their observations accord per-fectly with my own, and I am only astonished that they did

not long ago make the easy discovery which is now occu-pying our attention. I have read attentively the observa-tions of those authors, sometimes beginning with the sym-ptoms and sometimes with the alterations in the brain foundafter death. Whenever amongst the symptoms there wasmention of los of speech I concluded there would be analteration in the anterior lobes, and when, on the contrary,by a kind of neuter proof I found in the description of thepathological changes a disorganisation of these same lobes Isaid on consulting the symptoms there would be loss of

speech. I assure you that I have never yet been deceivedin this kind of diagnosis."

"

Again, in speaking of "la pertede la memoire des noms," he says, "Now, since on the onehand the loss of speech and of the memory of words is theinevitable consequence of disorganisation of the anteriorpart of the brain, and since on the other hand this symptomdoes not accompany alterations of other cerebral convolu-tions, have we not a right to conclude that the anteriorpart of the brain is the seat of the organ of articulatelanguage " "

It is remarkable that although in his illustrative cases itis mentioned that one side only of the portal lobes wasdamaged, Bouilland makes no reference to it. The localisa-tion to the left side was made out by Dax and Broca, andconfirmed by Hughlings-Jackson. It may be rememberedthat Gall and the phrenologists had before this time assertedthat the seat of language lay in the anterior lobes, and sup-ported their doctrine by cases of accident and disease.

I am, Sir, yours obediently,Grosvenor-st., Nov. 12th, 1881. SAMUEL WILKS.

A RARE TERMINATION OF CANCER OF THEŒSOPHAGUS.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,-As illustrating a rare mode of termination of

cesophageal cancer, and as bearing on some of the pointsraised at the last meeting of the Clinical Society withregard to surgical interference in such cases, I may be per-mitted to give the following brief details of a post-mortemexamination I was fortunate enough to see at the Pathologi-cal Institute at Berlin in September last. The case wasthat of a man about fifty years of age, who was sufferingfrom a stricture of the oesophagus of some duration. He

was, moreover, phthisical, and had already given indicationsof commencing pulmonary gangrene, when he was suddenlyattacked with profuse haemoptysis which carried him off.The examination was made by Dr. Grawitz on Sept. 19th.

The bronchi of the right lung were found to be filled withblood. In the anterior part ot the lower lobe, near the rootof this lung, was a gangrenous cavity the size of a walnut,surrounded by a zone of hepatisation, and some scatteredgreyish broncho-pneumonic foci. At the apex of the leftlung there was an old smoothly-lined vomica, and dispersedthroughout the organ were greyish, pigmented, and caseousgranulations, as well as some irregular caseous masses.Both lungs were highly engorged. The oesophagus wasadherent to the aorta and trachea opposite to the bifurca-tion of the latter; and it was here the seat of a largeirregularly excavated cancerous (probably epitheliomatous)ulcer. The cavity of the ulcer was filled with blood-clot,as were also the segment of the gullet below and the stomach.On turning out the clot the ulceration was found to haveperforated the right side of the trachea at its bifurcation,and the descending aorta about the same level. Above thecancer the gullet was much dilated, whilst below it somesecondary nodules occurred in the mucous membrane of theoesophagus, and also in the mucous membrane of thestomach.The course of events was probably as follows : The cancer

of the oesophagus in its middle portion had first ulceratedinto the trachea at the point of departure of the ’rightbronchus ; hence the supervention of pulmonary gangrene, aby no means infrequent sequence in cesophageal cancer atthis region. The perforation into the aorta resulted in theattack of haemoptysis and haemorrhage into the stomach, theblood finding its way into the right lung through the pre-viously established fistula. It is this ulceration of the aortathat lends importance to the case, and emphasises therecognised need for the caution with which the introductionof instruments should be used. The supervention of cancer