227

the chapter on Chloroform, which has been carefully revised;and Cold is not forgotten as an anxsthetic. And the Formulae- very essential and important feature of the work-havebeen also revised and added to. The illustrations, upwards ofthree hundred in number, add very much to the beauty of the.book.

On the Composition of Food and How it is A dnltel"ated, withPractical Directions for its Analysis. By W. MAPCET,M.D., F. C. S., &c. London : John Churchill.

THE author of this book tells his readers that " it claims no

originality beyond the introduction of some chemical methodsnot hitherto employed in the analysis of food." And these

"chemical methods not hitherto employed" are not particu-larly specified.

’

Why, then, is the book published? Because " personal ex-perience has convinced the author of the want of a text-book,containing the simplest and, at the same time, the most effica-cious methods for detecting the nature of the adulterations towhich our food is daily exposed." "How does he make out his case ? By seeking to depreciate

the authenticity of that work which contains at once the

foundation of all our accurate knowledge on the subject, andwhich has supplied himself with by far the most valuable por-

tion of the information he retails to the public. Dr. Marcet

thus endeavours to gain a footing on ground made popular byourselves and Dr. Hassall, by tripping up the latter: " Still,I may, perhaps, be allowed to add, after having perusedDr. Hassall’s book with attention, that some of his descrip-tions appear to me rather exaggerated. It is of the utmost

importance that the author of a work such as his should notonly be perfectly impartial, but most carefully avoid over-stating his case ; he must remember that in no country in theworld has trade acquired such an extension as in Great Britain,and that many honest tradespeople might be seriously injuredby an overcharged statement."

There is something exceedingly disingenuous in these re-marks. Dr. Marcet does not specify the "apparent" exag-gerated statements. He is unable, by any definite fact, to jus-tify his general imputation of inaccuracy. Yet he endeavoursto invalidate not only the justice of the allegations madeagainst vendors and adulterators, but also to throw doubt uponthe trustworthiness of the scientific processes employed by Dr.Hassall. We take the liberty of assuring Dr. Marcet that hewill commend neither his work nor himself by such a pro-ceeding. Before his insinuation that Dr.’ Hassall’s book isnot fitted for " a guide to the medical practitioner" can makeway, medical peactitioners, who are excellent judges of whatthey want in this matter, will call upon him to point out why itis not fitted for the purpose. Nor will they necessarily adoptDr. Marcet’s volume, even if it should be proved that Dr. Has-sall’s is defective. He must show, further, that his own suc-ceeds in supplying the want. We will put it to this test.Does it supply the want of a practical text-book for the

detection of adulteration ?There is a class of medical practitioners lately called into

action as sanitary officers. One of the especial duties of thesegentlemen is to apply the resources of science to the detectionof these adulterations. They are specially able to appreciatethe merits of a guide in such researches. We have placed Dr.Marcet’s compilation in the hands of one of the most able andintelligent of this body, asking him for his candid opinion as tehow far it would answer the purposes of himself and his col-

leagues. His decided opinion is, that as a " practical guide"in the investigation of the qualities of food, the work utter7yfails; that it would be of no use to him whatever, and heevinces no kind of gratitude for our present. Nor will anycompetent critic be surprised at this after a perusal of the book.At page 15 there are some woodcut representations professing toexhibit the microscopical characters of the different starches

with which flour may be adulterated. They are absolutelynnintelligible and unrecognisable-imperfect as drawings, andfalse as representations of what they are intended to re-

present.With regard to the important subject of Meat-concerning

the modes of distinguishing the unwholesome kinds of whichsome practical information would have been very acceptable-we find little more than the rather superfluous intimation that" in warm weather, meat is very apt to undergo decompo-sition." "

One statement he makes upon this subject is calculated tobe exceedingly mischievous, and exhibits the want of practicalknowledge of the author:

"It is," he says, "singular, and important to observe, thatthough putrid meat be decidedly unhealthy, still, meat fromdiseased animals appears quite innocuous, which is shown tobe the case from experiments made at Alfort by Hussard,Renault, and others; but as diseased meat is very apt to un-dergo putrid decomposition immediately or very rapidly afterdeath, it may at all events be considered objectionable."Thus a few negative experiments at Alfort are to overthrow

the results of the experience of numerous observant practitioners.In his description of Milk, Dr. Marcet is also very incom-

plete. He makes no mention of perhaps the most serious andobjectionable kind of milk,-viz., that obtained from diseasedor unhealthy cows kept in close stables in towns. This milk,besides its poverty in nutritive elements, often contains pusand other products of disease. For the detection of this, themicroscope is essential; but Dr. Marcet’s instructions are con-fined to chemical methods, and these not sufficient for theirpurpose.A good practical mode of examining the microscopical and

chemical characters of Waters would be naturally expected ina book of this kind; but nothing of the sort is to be found.The subject of Adulterations of Medicines is not touched upon;and numerous other serious omissions might be noticed.In a word, the book altogether fails to keep the premiss

found in its title-page and introduction.

CASES IN MIDWIFERY PRACTICE.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-Having read with much interest in THE LANCET of £the 9th instant, three cases of difficult midwifery, by Dr.Winn, I should feel obliged by being informed as to one par-ticular point in the last case, in which he states he had re-course to delivery by craniotomy, whilst the child rested onthe perinseum. To quote an extract in his remarks-viz.," I found her in a semi-comatose and exhausted condition,with a putrid child resting on the perinseum." He does notsay whether it was the head or some other part that restedthere ; as a matter of course, the cranium must have beenwithin reach before the accouchement could be accomplished ;but how was the child situated within the pelvic cavity at thetime of delivery ? Is it generally considered preferable-insome cases-where the head is as low down as the perinseum.(the child at the time being dead), to open it, than to deliverby the short forceps? I wish to be excused for criticising uponthe gleanings of so experienced an accoucheur as Dr. Winn,but my anxiety to acquire further knowledge in the profes-sion, will, I trust, be sufficient apology for troubling you orany of your numerous readers for a reply.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,August, 1866. -

OBSTETRICUS JUVENIS.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,-In THE LANCET of the 9th instant, in the reports of

cases " illustrative of Important Points of Midwifery," by Dr.Winn, under the heading " Enormous Distension of the Bladder’

from Neglect of Catheterism," I find the patient described asbeing in a semi-comatose and exhausted condition, with aputrid child ?Oesting on the perinceum, and that she was deli-

vered by craniotomy. What necessity was there to performr

the operation of craniotomy when the head was resting on the’ perinseum ? The insertion of the above question will oblige,) Sir, your obedient servant,

t August, 1866. . 227

MACHAON.