205

Your memorialists therefore respectfully urge on your honour-able Council the necessity of applying for more extended powers,in order that the intentions of the Legislature, as set forth inthe preamble of the Medical Act, may be fully and efficientlycarried out.

(These memorials were adopted at a full meeting, and

warmly supported.)

POOR-LAW MEDICAL REFORM ASSOCIATION.

RICHARD GRIFFIN.

J. ROGERS, M.D., Hon. Sec. (pro tem.)

12, Royal-terrace, Weymouth, Feb. 21st, 1860.

DEAR SIRS,-I have much pleasure in informing you thatthe Poor-law Medical Bill will be introduced on Tuesday next,by Mr. Pigott. All the clauses will remain as they are in thePamphlet No. 4, excepting those relating to vaccination, whichit has been thought desirable to withdraw, and make the sub-ject of a separate Bill. If you really desire this measure to becarried, each of you ought to write to your own M.P. at least,and request his support: you ought also to petition the House.

Let me beg of each of you to act as if the cause depended onyour own individual exertions. No time should be lost, other-wise the Bill may be thrown out on a second reading, and itmay take years to recover our lost position. One hundred and

fifty gentlemen have sent me their subscriptions during thelast three weeks, to the amount of £70; I am, therefore, freeof debt, and have a small balance in hand, but not sufficient tocarry on an affair of this magnitude with vigour, as every M.P.ought to have another Pamphlet before the second readingcomes on. I beg to thank those gentlemen who have alreadywritten to me expressing their approval of my services; and Iyet hope the Poor-law medical officers will, as a body, unite insupporting me with vigour in this affair.The Committee met this day, and, I am happy to say, have

expressed their approval of the course now being pursued.I am, dear Sirs, yours faithfully,

The Poor-law Medical Officers. RICHARD GRIFFIN.

AT a meeting of the Committee of the Poor-law MedicalReform Association, held at the Freemasons’ Tavern on Tues-day last-Richard Griffin, Esq., in the chair,-it was resolvedunanimously-"That the thanks of this meeting are due, and are hereby

given, to R. Griffin, Esq., for his great sacrifice of time andlabour in the advocacy of the cause of Poor-law MedicalReform. "

" That with a view to the more efficiently carrying out thisagitation to a successful issue, the Committee beg to recom-mend the co-operation of the medical students of the variousLondon and provincial hospitals, and earnestly trust that theywill forthwith take steps to convene meetings at their variousschools, and to petition the House of Commons in favour ofPoor-law Medical Reform." "

Correspondence."Audi alteram partem."

THE LATE DR. MARSHALL HALL AND THEROYAL SOCIETY.

To the Editor of TaE LANCET.

SiR,-In a letter from Dr. Williams, of Swansea, publishedin THE LANCET of the llth instant, allusion is justly made tothe treatment which Dr. Marshall Hall experienced from theRoyal Society. I beg to correct one expression, and one errorof date, in his letter. I had the honour and privilege of beingadmitted to the intimacy of that great and good man, an inti-macy of thirty years, and which continued to the last hour ofhis valuable life; and I can assure Dr. Williams that his senti-.tnents towards the Royal Society were these: an abiding senseof the injustice and unfairness which he had suffered at its hands,his feelings being characterized by contempt, not "hatred." "We know how foreigners regard the conduct of that Society

towards Marshall Hall and his discoveries. For instance: ina very able and just epitome of his life and labours which ap-

peared in a French journal, his jealous and unjust foes aresomewhat contemptuously designated as "les médiocrités quiformaient la majorite au sein de la Royal Society."’ Repulsedin his own country, however, our great physiologist receivedhonour from a far higher source than the Royal Society. TheAcadêmie des Sciences (the Institute of France), which un-doubtedly ranks as the highest scientific institution in theworld, perceiving and acknowledging the value and originalityof his discoveries, elected him an honorary member of theirbody, as did also most of the scientific societies of the world.The error in Dr. Williams’s letter is merely one of date. It

was the second, not the first, of Marshall Hall’s Memoirs onthe Excito-Motory System which was refused publication bythe Royal Society. It contained the results of four more yearsof most laborious investigation, much important new matter,and a vast extension and application of the facts detailed inthe first memoir. Dr. Williams truly observes-" Time provedthat his paper was foremost in value amongst modern disco-veries." Its rejection was far from being the only injury done

to Dr. Marshall Hall by the Royal Society.Let Dr. Williams and other cultivators of science take couragefrom the example of Marshall Hall, whom no opposition, nodetraction, and no sneers could deter from labouring on in hisuseful career and unwearied search after truth. In spite of theRoyal Society and a whole host of opposers, he had at lengththe satisfaction of seeing his discoveries everywhere receivedand honoured, except by a few jealous or unreasonable indi-viduals.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,February, 1860. JUSTITIA.

DR. HEALE AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY.

(LETTER FROM DR. JAMES NEWTON HEALE.)To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-I have been obliged to take a journey into a remotepart of England, otherwise I would not have been guilty ofthe discourtesy of leaving Dr. Sharpey’s and Mr. Bowman’sletters so long unanswered. I have already by anticipationpartially replied to Dr. Sharpey’s report on my paper by theletter kindly published in THE LANCET of last week, whichwas sent to you before the report in question had appeared inyour valuable periodical, and consequently before I had seen it.

But before entering upon that subject, allow me to makeone or two observatiuns regarding Dr. Waters’ letter in THELANCET of Saturday last (the 18th inst.) I have to inform Dr.Waters, that in the paper which I sent to the Royal Society,and which is now missing, I enlarged at considerable lengthon the doubts which had been thrown out as to whether thebronchial arteries had any corresponding veins; and I adducedquotations from the writings of Dr. Marshall Hall, Dr. ThomasWilliams, and others upon that point. But having myself in.jected the lungs of human beings, of oxen, of horses, of asses,of sheep, rabbits, &c., and of multitudes of animals from the

Zoological Gardens, of whose names, indeed, I am ignorant, Iam quite sure that there are such things as bronchial veins,and that the whole of the refuse blood from the bronchial arte-ries is returned by them, and in no other way. It is difficultto demonstrate the fact by injection, because of the valves ofthe veins, and because their open extremities cannot all be tied,so as to prevent the escape of the injection poured into themthrough the capillaries of the bronchial arteries. Even to pointout the exact distribution of the arteries themselves is a difficultand tedious process, because of their minuteness in comparisonwith the bulk of the lungs ; much more so the veins. But letDr. Waters only go into any slaughterhouse, and cast a glanceat the lungs, even of the animals that have been recently bledto death, and I am quite sure that no doubt will remain on hismind as to whether there are any bronchial veins or not. Stillless doubt will he have should he take the trouble to poison afew animals with prussic acid, and soon afterwards examinetheir lungs.

Dr. Sharpey’s report asserts that though the pulmonaryveins in my preparations were fully injected, yet the capil-laries of the pulmonary artery, which was injected with ayellow colour, were only imperfectly filled.

In reply, I beg to say (and my preparations will bear meout) that the pulmonary artery was quite as perfectly injectedas the pulmonary veins. But I admit that the capillaries gavealmost universally a red appearance to the eye; and the reasonof this is that when a very small quantity of the red injection

206

becomes mingled with the yellow, the red colour preponderatesgreatly over the yellow, and gives to the whole a red tint. Thatthe capillaries in my possession contain both red and yellowinjection is easily proved, by destroying a portion of the coatsof the capillaries, so as to make the injection exude. Whenthis is done, both the yellow and the red material become dis-tinctly visible.By showing that the capillaries, which are continuous with

the pulmonary vein, fill the plexus of the bronchial’membrane,strong primâ facie evidence is brought forward that the capil-laries of the pulmonary artery also do the same thing. Thematter can be demonstrated, however, beyond all doubt, bytransposing the two colours, and using the red injection for thearteries and the yellow for the veins, (the injection of bothbeing of course made simultaneously, and by means of thegraduated pressure mentioned in my unfortunate paper.) Thesame capillaries which, in the former preparation, exhibited ared colour, will still display the same hue, because the sametwo colours, though in opposite directions, will still be mingledtogether in the capillaries, and the tint of the red will prepon-derate over the yellow ; and it will appear as if the pulmonaryartery were very perfectly injected, and the veins only par-tially so, for that reason.The reason for my preferring to use the most telling of the

two colours for injecting the veins rather than the arteries was,that there was no dispute as to the correctness of the accountsordinarily given regarding the distribution of the pulmonaryartery, and that therefore it was only necessary to demon-strate, more perfectly than had yet been done, the origin ofthe pulmonary veins, and more particularly to show the ramus-culi on the outer side of the bronchial tubes, which collect theblood from the plexus lining the bronchial membrane.

It must be remembered that in Dr. Sharpey’s own work itis distinctly stated that the bronchial mucous membrane is

supplied from the bronchial arteries, and that these are itsnutrient vessels, and supply the mucous secretion derived fromthe membrane.By proving that the pulmonary veins, and not the bronchial

veins, are in connexion with the plexus, a. long step is takento disprove the connexion of those capillaries with the bron-chial arteries. But when the capillaries of the bronchial arteryare clearly shown to go in quite a different direction, and thatit is impossible to make any portion of its capillaries spreadthemselves into the plexus of the bronchial membrane, I cou-tend that the matter is placed beyond all cavil.

I think Dr. Sharpey will himself admit that my preparationsabundantly show that the capillaries of the bronchial artery arefound (extensively in proportion to the size of the artery) dis-tributed elsewhere than in the bronchial membrane; and there-fore the discussion is narrowed down to the question as towhether a little (only a very leetle) part of the capillaries ofthe bronchial artery may go to the plexus (quite insufficient tofurnish the bronchial mucus), and whether it comes in’o rela-tion with the very extensive vascular plexus so evidently seenin connexion with the pulmonary veins. I contend that nonewhatever go there.

I also contend that, by showing that these capillaries of thebronchial membrane are in extensive connexion with both the

pulmonary veins and the pulmonary artery, it is not incumbenton me to prove a negative (proverbially difficnlt of demonstra-tion) with regaid to a minute fractional part of a minute artery,when discussing the broad question as to which particular ves-sels supply the bronchial mucous membrane and furnish itssecretion. But difficult as that task is, I contend that mypreparations and experiment abundantly establish the fact thatMO part whatever of the bronchial arteries has any participationin the vascular plexus from which the bronchial mucus is pro-duced.

Let so much as I have now written, taken in connexion withmy last letter, which you were so obliging as to insert, be myreply to Dr. Sharpey’s report.

’"‘ The remainder of Dr. Heale’s long letter is so full of

personal remarks, that for his sake we think it better to

withhold it.-ED. L. ____

THE INCOME - TAX.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SiR,--Your able article on the Budget deserves the bestthanks of the profession. Having always felt the Income-taxto be a heavy burden, I have watched with much satisfaction your strenuous and indefatigable opposition to this impost asit affects medical practitioners ; and I would take this oppor-

tunity of offering you my grateful acknowledgments for thepowerful support which our interests have invariably receivedin the pages of your valuable journal.My only regret, on the present occasion, is that yon did not

favour us with some plan by which we could make ourselvesheard before the Budget, in its present shape, becomes anaccomplished fact. Surely something might be done by a com.binerl effort on the part of the profession to arrest the attentionof Parliament, at least to the injustice of the tax as regardslabour-incomes. It has occurred to me that the machinery ofthe British Medical Association might, advantageously, bebrought into play for this purpose; its branches are scatteredthroughout the length and breadth of the land, and wouldafford rallying points for the profession generally. There isone part of this machinery, however, from which I fear wehave little to hope; I refer to the Journal. I must confess Iwas very much disappointed and disgusted on opening it lastSaturday to find, instead of a manly remonstrance against theIncome-tax, a stupid article on "publicans’ port," and theadvantages to the poor from the introduction of French wines.So, then, because boards of guardians refuse to provide goodport we must tamely submit to a tenpenny Income-tax. Awaywith such nonsense!

Unwilling to trespass further on your valuable space, I willonly add a hope that my fellow-associates will not follow thesteps of this leader, but unite heartily and speedily in deter.mined opposition to the Budget. Tempus fugit !

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,February, 1860. A CONSTANT READER.

MR. THOMAS WAKLEY’S STRICTURE TUBES.7’0 the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-I was much pleased with the letter of " Medicus" inlast week’s impression of your journal, and can most truly andconscientiously endorse all that he has written respecting theextraordinary and successful treatment of stricture of theurethra with Mr. Thomas Wakley’s " guides and tubes."Like your correspondent, I was a suiferer from an impermeablestricture, involving several distressing complications, and likehim I was not only rapidly relieved, but, as many monthshave passed since I was under treatment, may now addcured; for although (perhaps imprudently) I rarely ever passa catheter, micturition is as easily and completely performedas when I was a boy. Twenty-sev en years ago I employedcaustic injections for a chronic gonorrhœa, and always after-wards suffered more or less from stricture. During the lattertwelve years, I experienced many alarming attacks of reten-tion of urine; upon some of these occasions I had the advan-tage of the presence of several of my most eminent professionalbrethren, but never in any one instance did I receive instru-mental relief, and more than once puncture of the bladder wasproposed and nearly executed, when the warm bath, opium, orchloroform caused slight temporary relief. All the ordinarymethods of treatment having been exhausted, and three severeattacks of retention occurring in fourteen days, I consultedMr. Wakley, and the happy result has already been told inthe commencement of this letter. Mr. Wade’s description inhis book is not only unfair, but untrue. The dilating tubesglide upon Nos. ½, 1, 2, 3, and 5 guides respectively. I trustthat other medical men who have been treated with the"stricture guides and tubes" will boldly state their experi-ence, for evidence where the surgeon himself is the subject oftreatment must carry greater conviction than when he onlyreports as the operator.

I enclose my name and address.I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

February, 1860. A COUNTRY SURGEON.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

As a lover of fair play, I am induced, through the pages ofTms LANCET, to express my indignation at the manner inwhich Mr. T. Wakley’s clever invention has been mentioned inMr. Wade’s work on " Stricture of the Urethra," and this ex-pression applies with equal force to the writings of others uponthe subject. As a great sufferer from the distressing malady ofstricture for many years, I have anxiously studied almost everyword which has been published on it, either in general orperiodical medical literature; and I am astonished that authorsshould pass over the important system of treatment pursuedby Mr. Wakley in only half a dozen words, in which they