480

other change take place in the blood in itsprogress from the uterus to the foetal portionof the placenta, than that it is simply con-verted from arterial to a thin venous blood ?What other change can take place? or whatreason is there for supposing that either inits progress to, or upon its arrival in, thefoetal portion of the placenta, any peculiarchange is required ; or that the thin venousblood is not in every way adapted both forthe secretion of the liquor amnii, and (afterhaving passed through the capillaries of thefoetal liver) for the development and nutri-tion of the foetus ?Nor is there any just ground for believing

that the blood returned from the foetus bythe umbilical arteries requires any peculiarchange to be effected in it by the placenta ;or that anything more takes place, than thatit commingles with the thin venous blood in Ithe placenta, with which it is sent back to Ithe foetus by the umbilical vein. It is merelythe superfluous blood, or that which is notimmediately required by the arteries in theprocess of developing the several foetalorgans: for we cannot entertain the opinionthat it is deteriorated in quality, or that theblood passing through the hypogastric or

umbilical arteries is at all different from thatsupplied to the lower extremities by the ex-ternal iliacs ; or from that propelled by thefoetal ventricles through the several ramifica-tions of the aorta to every organ and texturein the foetal system, in which a portion is

deposited, and the remainder returned to thefcetal auricles.-Pages 27-41 ; 59--fit ;91-93.

THE POISONS OF SYPHILIS ANDGONORRHŒA.

T. WILSON, M.D.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-In the valuable and important lec- z,tures of Mr. Lane on syphilis, now beingpublished in THE LANCET, is a statement" that gonorrhoea depends upon a specificpoison distinct from that of syphilis." Nowthat this important matter should be fullycleared up, is of the greatest consequence tothe public and profession. Dr. Wallace,whom Mr. Lane has quoted, distinctly as-

serts, that the poison from a constitutionalsyphilitic sore, if applied to a mucous surface,such as the orifice of the urethra, will pro-duce a gonorrhoea in a few days, and mayconstitutionally be followed by a mottled ormeasley eruption. This would argue a com-

plete identity of the two poisons, but pro-ducing ditlerent effects from being applied todifferent surfaces. The negative fact that the

splenic and portal veins ; and that propelledby the placenta, by having, previous to ar-riving at this organ, left a part of its solidconstituents in the parietes of the uterus.

matter of gonorrhoea will not produce a vene-real eruption, is no proof whatever to invali.late their identity; if the virus of gonorrhoeaand syphilis are two distinct poisons, there canbe no fear of the one producing the other,and vice versa. So that it is of the greatestconsequence to be well informed on the sub-ject.

It does not appear that M. Ricord has putthe matter to the test of direct experiment,he merely arguing, à priori, that as thematter of a gonorrhaeal discharge would notproduce anything like venereal eruption, itwas necessarily a distinct and specific poi-son. Perhaps Mr. Lane has proved the factby direct experiment. I know Dr. Wallacewas a most indefatigable observer and expe-rimentalist, and would not put anything inprint that he did not believe in the full forceof its truth, and that he had not convincedhimself of experimentally. He found greatdifficulty in producing syphilis by ino.culation with the secondary virus; and whenit did succeed, it was always of a mildercha.racter than that from which it was produced,and this diminution of strength was pro-gressive until the poison was so modified or" diluted" as to lose all power whatever ofpropagation, and gonorrhoea is of that class,unless applied to mucous surfaces; indeed,so convinced was Dr. Wallace of it, that hewas constantly in the habit of scarifyingthe orifice of the urethra, as he said, to re-

lieve inflammatory action, and at the sametime prove the harmlessnessofthe discharge.I have the honour to be, Sir, yours,

T. WILSON, M.D.21, Cambridge-terrace, Hyde-park,

June 27, 1842.

TINCTURE OF SESQUICHLORIDEOF IRON IN GLEET.

To the Editor of THF LANCET.

SIR,-It is very gratifyingto the professionthat its members of late so freely contributetheir knowledge to the periodicals for theadvancement of science, and more especiallyin those who have the 11 tactus eruditus" of

condensing their information, thus appre-ciating the valuable time of a practitionerwhich is consumed in perusing a voluminousarticle. Perhaps some of your kind corre-spondents will take a friendly hint.In former years I have had considerable

difficulty in the thorough cure of 11 gleetbeing able to put an end to the discharge fora time, as generally the case, to return.

I will now relate" two cases" out of manywhere I have succeeded in permanently era-dicating this troublesome complaint by thetincture of sesquichloride of iron.

John Thomson, aged 24, had gonorrhoeaeighteen months ago, and gleet continued

since ; has been under treatment of a surgeon,

481

who ordered cubebs, copaiva, &c., but ahe was careless of consequences did not ap-ply regularly: he had a discharge of thin,white pus when he applied to me. Orderednitrate of silver and sulphate of zinc injec-tions, alternately to be used, but withouteffect. I then made use of tincture of iron,gts. xxv, three times a-day, and gradually in-creased to gts. xl ; in a fortnight he was per-fectly well; has had no return since.Wm. Simpson, aged 21, had gleet twelve

months ; ordered the tincture of iron, dose,gts. xx, two or three times a-day ; to be in-creased to dose gts. xxxv. After seven or

eight days the discharge had nearly ceased ;in fifteen days he was cured.

If the above is of sufficient consequence toreceive a place in your-next Number, I begyou will insert it; and should any gentlemanhave tried this "valuable tincture," perhapshe will have the kindness to contribute hisexperience in a future Number. I remain,Sir, yours very obediently,

S. E. R. JONES.The Naze, June 25, 1842.

S. E. R. JONES.

NON-RESTRAINT PLAN OFTREATING LUNATICS.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SiR,ŅMuch has lately been said in praise

of the non-restraint plan of treating lunatics ;but although the statement is sufficiently pre-cise, that in such or such an asylum no formof strait-waistcoat, no hand-straps, no leg-locks, nor any contrivance confining thetrunk or limbs, is in use, and that the coercion-chairs have been set aside; and although theassurance is a delightful one, that the non-restraint system has contributed greatly tothe comfort, cheerfulness, and recovery of theinsane, I must confess I have not met, in anyof the numerous communications in yourJournal or elsewhere, with any distinct ac-count of the actual mode of treating lunaticsunder the new system. It is stated merelyin a general way, that watching or s1lI’l’eil-lance is now substituted in place of mecha-nical restraint, which is a very vague accountof the matter. I should feel greatly obliged,therefore, to Mr. Hill, or any other of yourreaders, who have had opportunities of prac-tising, or of seeing practised, the non-restraintsystem, if they would condescend to explainthe plan of managing the following classes oflunatics without restraint : viz., 1. Furiousmaniacs; 2. Melancholies, with a great ten-dencytosuicide; 3. Patients who obstinatelyrefuse food.Although the treatment of mental derange-

ment is a department of medical science,which is usually considered as alreadycrowded with publications, a work foundedon personal experience in the non-restraintplan is surely much wanted. I am, Sir,your obedient servant, EXETASTrcOS.

Belfast, June 20, 1842.

THE LANCET.

London, Saturday, July 2, 1842.

NEW CHARTERS OP THE MEDICAL COLLEGES.

Two charters are in the course of prepara-tion for the Colleges in Pall-Mall and Lin-coln’s Inn-fields. This is the rumour. We

can scarcely credit it; but the mere mentionof charters is alarming, as the principlesupon which such charters should be founded

have never been defined by Parliament, andthere is the same danger that the Governmentmay be misinformed and misled now as

when the Twenty-one of the College of Sur-geons obtained their exclusive privileges,and entered by charter upon their presentusurpations. The monopolists dread discus-sion. They are well aware that they haveno case for the House of Commons. Hence

their underhanded attempt to gain a con-firmation and extension of their powers bycharter, without showing their faces in theLegislature, where they perceive they mightget more roughly handled than in the privatecloset of cabinet ministers, whom their pre-sidents might possibly have treated for gout,have bled, have purged, or have cured of a

constipation. We tell these chartists that

they will never succeed. The day for self-elective councils and TUDOR and STUART

charters has gone by. The Government

dares no more grant them the charters theydemand, nor perpetuate the irresponsiblebodies that expend the money, usurp the

power, and deny the rights of ten thou-

sand medical practitioners, than charter a

crew of pirates or a gang of highwaymen.What do the twenty-one gentlemen in Lin-coln’s Inn-fields ask for? Simply permis-sion to continue taking by charter twenty-oneheavy sQve1’eigns out of the pocket of everyEnglish surgeon, and to expend the said

sovereigns in any way they please. Theyhave not been satisfied with this, but have

further insisted on the production of hospitalcertificates, for which they or their friends

have exacted from thirty to fifty more sove-