490

quality by tearing up white cards, and dropping pieces into the water; he observed that " when the pieces fell edgeways, the Ilower part was hidden from sight before the upper part wasunder water. Near the bridges the feculence rolled up inclouds, so dense that they were visible at the surface." Asthe Professor refers immediately afterwards to the offensivesmell, (it being low water, and the stream very shallow atHungerford,) and the use of the river as a sewer, the conclusionwas universally adopted, that the "fec2clence rolling in clouds"was nothing more nor less than sewage matter. But Mr. Fara-day did not say this, nor could he say it. " So far is this in-ference from being true," says Dr. Barnes in a Report printedin January, 1857, "those clouds of so called feculence’ are eimportant agents in the purification of the Thames. Almostthe whole of that matter which renders the river turbid isearthy detritus--clay and silex, washed down from its banksand water-shed, or raised from its bed, and suspended in themass of flowing waters in fine particles. This inorganic matterattracts and entangles the sewage substances as these minglewith the stream. It thus exerts a powerful disinfecting anddecomposing action on the organic matter. A series of obser-vations, as yet incomplete, which I have made upon the watersof the Thames, taken at different periods of the tide, fromalongside the Dreadnought, affords sufficient proof of the acou-racy of these statements. The Thames is never so muddy, soturbid, or so opaque, as during the flood and high-water, pre-cisely when it contains the minimum of sewage-matter;......atlow water, on the other hand, when there is the maximum ofsewage, the water is often almost bright, yielding cornpara-tively little earthy deposit.......r think it has not been provedby distinct evidence that the unconverted organic matter existsin a form which is capable of producing disease, so long, that is,as it is not deposited on the banks." Near the piers, where Mr.Faraday’s observations were made, the stream is very shallowat low water, and the paddle-wheels of the steam-boats ofcourse churn up the earthy sediment from the bottom. Ridicu-lous as it may appear, it is still necessary to repeat that thisearthy detritus, which clouds the river, is not human excre-ment, and that the diversion of the sewage will not purify theriver from it.

It requires something more than a steam-boat voyage on theThames to be able to pronounce magisterially upon the sourcesof its foulness, and its presumed deleterious influence uponhealth. Mr. Faraday himself has not, that we are aware, de-liberately enunciated the opinions or theories which others havedrawn from his description of the river.Where our health is concerned, (we say nothing of money,

for pecuniary considerations are treated with such lofty con-tempt by those who advocate Main-Drainage schemes that wedare not venture to interpose an objection on this score,) it isat least worth while to inquire, What are the sanitary groundsupon which the expediency of a Main-Drainage system rests ?Obviously, the burden of proof lies upon those who affirm thisexpediency. But they have limited their ingenuity and labourto the more attractive task of constructing Intercepting-plans.

Let us recal to their attention what it is they are requiredto prove, and what it is they have assumed.

1. That the sewage, as it is now discharged into the Thamesby numerous natural outfalls, accumulates in the river, is

brought back or " ponded up" by every flood-tide, is the causeof the foulness of the river, empoisons the air by putrefaction,and exerts a deleterious influence upon the health of the in-habitants of the metropolis. ’

2. That the appearance of the river will be improved, thedeposits of mud prevented, and the removal of offensive emana-nations effected, by diverting the sewage from that part of theriver which lies within the metropolitan boundary, and dis-charging it into the river lower down.

3. That the health of the metropolis generally will be raisedby this interception of the sewage.

4. That the facilities of sewerage-that is, of promptly and. efficiently getting rid of the sewage and sewer-gases from our

habitations-will be increased by the construction of hugeintercepting sewers, to supplant the existing natural and shorteroutfalls into the river.

It will be admitted that we have here a considerable body ofpropositions of sufficient importance to engage a little attentionand research, before discussing the relative merits of rivalMain-Drainage schemes.

The public has been favoured with schemes without number.We know not yet where to look for evidence of the truth ofthe propositions, without establishing which these schemes area logical anachronism, castles in the air, dreams unworthy toengage the thoughts of o practical arca

Medical Societies.MEDICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

SATURDAY, MAY 1ST, 1858.DR. HUGHES WILLSHIRE, PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.

; MR. BAKER BROWN referred to the use of the

SILVER WIRE SUTURE,

lately recommended by Dr. Sims. Mr. Brown said that it hadthe great advantage of not cutting itself out, and in this respectwas invaluable in cases of operation for vesico-vaginal fistulaand ruptured perinæum. Dr. Sims had recommended its usein cases of ovariotomy, and had suggested that the pedicleshould be secured by a silver wire ligature. It might be usedalso advantageously in cases of hare lip, flap operation of thethigh, &c. Mr. Brown had never seen the silver wire affectedby gases emanating from the wound.

I)r. BARRATT was about to perform ovariotomy, and wouldbe glad to know if Mr. Brown endorsed the opinion of Dr.Sims respecting the employment of the silver wire in thatoperation. Did Mr. Brown still advise injection in simplecases of ovarian dropsy ?

Mr. BROWN agreed with Dr. Sims respecting the employmentof silver wire sutures in ovariotomy. He still employed injec.tions in simple unilocular non-malignant forms of ovarian dis.ease previous to attempting removal.

Dr. HEADLAND suggested that platinum wire would be moreadvantageous than silver wire, inasmuch as it would not beacted upon by the gases, which would affect the silver after acertain interval.

Mr. BROWN had used the platinum wire, but it was too

pliable and flexible; it was not necessary to retain the silverwire long enough to be acted upon by gases. He might state,in reference to cases of vesico-vaginal fistula, that he had latelyoperated upon a case successfully, the cure being effected inten days.A paper was afterwards read by Dr. Nelson, of New York,

on the Circulation ; but it offered no points of sufficient interestfor a report.At the previous meeting of the Society, Mr. ALFRED POLAND

read a paperON THE ABUSE OF MERCURY IN OPHTHALMIC DISEASES.

The author prefaced his remarks by stating that his chief aimwas to draw the attention of the profession generally to theabove subject, and more especially when practised by thosenot over-conversant with these affections. He was sorry to

say that the study of eye diseases had considerably declined,and that it was more and more becoming an isolated branch ofthe profession. In former years every hospital and generalsurgeon undertook the treatment of this class of cases, and thelecturers on surgery at the several schools duly elucidated theprinciples and practice thereof. Nowadays, on the contrary,with the exception of one or two leading medical schools,ophthalmic surgery had become isolated, and rendered perfectlydistinct and separate; there were separate wards and separatelectures, which were, moreover, unrecognised by the examiningboards. The author hoped that this state of affairs might beremedied, and that persons before entering on practice shouldshow some evidence of having studied, and become practicallyacquainted with the treatment of diseases of the eye. Withthese strictures the author cursorily surveyed the general dis.eases of the eye, pointing out that in the majority of them,mercury was not required. In the conjunctival inflammation,including also gonorrhceal ophthalmia, mercury was inadmis-sible, inasmuch as they could be cured without its administra-tion. So, also, in so-called strumous diseases, comprisingophthalmia and corneitis, it was a remedy that did no good, asattention to the secretions and excretions, with due regard todiet and the powers of the patient, sufficed to eradicate thecomplaint. It would hardly be credited that, in the year 1858,mercury was administered for penetrating wounds of the eye,yet he (Mr. Poland) was sorry to say such was the case; and,he remarked, what would be the results of operation for ex-traction were this line of treatment to be adopted ? Inadvert-ing to sclerotitis and iritis, mercury came to our aid, more soin the latter than in the former disease; yet even in these

affections more attention ought to be paid to the condition anconstitution of the patient than the nature of the disease.

491

was too much the fashion to consider that because a part ororgan had taken on inflammation, and, in consequence, hadappended to its name the dreaded term, " itis," it was to becombated by calomel, leeches, low diet, &c. Many an eye,and, perhaps, life, had been lost by this unfortunate appendage.As for amaurosis, the author naively stated that all the

mercury in the world would not remove a cupped condition ofthe entrance of the optic nerve, nor would it replace a detachedretina, nor promote the absorption of dirty white pigment onthe retina, nor restore the lost transparency of the retina, norsuch other organic changes pointed out by the use of the oph-thalmoscope. Yet mercury was, and is still, administered bysome, for days, weeks, and even months. Space will notallow us to enter more fully into each of the topics broughtforwards, as these principles and treatment advocated are thosegenerally practised and taught by the several leading surgeonswho have studied eye diseases. It was the author’s endeavour,in his few loose remarks, to call attention to the simple fact,that an improvement had taken place in the last few years, bya more guarded abstinence from the use of the drug mercuryin ophthalmic practice, and that such should be made knownto the profession generally, so that they may avoid resorting tothe remedy as a specific in inflammations generally. I,

PATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.DR. WATSON PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.

DR. OGLE exhibitedA CANCEROUS CYST OF THE LIVER,

which was taken from a patient whose liver was united to thediaphragm and abdominal parietes by adhesions. On makinga section over the cancerous tumour of the liver, a quantity offluid gushed out, showing that the disease had assumed herethe character of a thick-walled cyst. There was a tendencyto softening towards its surface.

Dr. MARKHAM related the particulars of a case ofENLARGED THYROID AND THYMUS GLANDS,

WITH DISEASE OF THE HEART AND PROMINENT EYEBALLS,and showed various specimens in illustration. The patientwas a young woman, twenty-six years of age, who sufferedfrom rheumatic fever six years ago, and lately the thyroidgland commenced to enlarge. She was a patient in St. Mary’sHospital two months before death, and suffered from violentpalpitations of the heart; she was exceedingly nervous, andthe heart struck like a hammer against the chest. The thyroidbody was much enlarged, and pressed upon the carotid arteriesand jugular veins, but not upon the trachea. The eyes were

prominent and full, and the lids could not be closed for someweeks before death. There was no inflammation of the con-junctiva. She experienced no benefit from treatment, and diedsuddenly from inflammation of the lungs. The thymus glandwas remarkably enlarged and spread out, and weighed twoounces and a half. There was a deposit of fibrous material inthe substance of the heart. -

The PRESIDENT asked if the eyes had been examined, and ifany physiological explanation could be given of their promi-nance ?Dr. MARKHAM replied they had not.The PRESIDENT had seen four of five cases of this kind, but

none had terminated fatally.Dr. MARKHAM also showed a specimen of

RUPTURE OF THE COLON

from distension of air in the gut itself, in a female aged sixty-five. She was for seven months ill with distention of thebowels, and had the ordinary symptoms of obstruction. Shecould not pass anything without difficulty, and the seat of ob-struction was supposed to be about the colon or upper part ofthe rectum. After death, eight pints of thick pultaceous matterwere found in the peritoneal cavity and about four pints in thebowels; altogether, a gallon and a half of bleached fæculentmatter, free from smell, from the fact of her having takencharcoal for some time. There was no inflammation nor ulcer-ation about the rupture, which was distinct enough. DeathWas sudden.Mr. CALLENDER exhibited a

FIBROUS TUMOUR OF THE UTERUS,taken from a patient of Dr. West’s, who was admitted into St.Bartholomew’s Hospital in 1852. She had received a violent

blow on the back, and had a protracted discharge from thevagina. A polypoid growth projected from the os uteri. Duringthe two or three following years she underwent various operationsfor the removal of this. Up to March, 1857, she was able to goabout, although feeble from uterine hæmorrhage; she enteredSt. Bartholomew’s again, and died from the latter cause. Alarge tumour was found attached to the posterior part of theuterus of the same character as that present in its interior.She had secondary deposit in the lungs. There was also atumour implicating the sixth cervical vertebra.Mr. CALLENDER also showed a photograph of

AN AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL,

of Moreton Bay, sent over for the museum of St. Bartholomew’sby Mr. Ward, of the Royal Navy. It illustrated the coarsemethod of tattooing across the chest employed by the natives,the skin resembling a series of transverse ropes.Mr. SPENCER WELLS presented an example of

CYSTIC TUMOUR OF THE CERVIX UTERI,

which he had removed from a woman, forty-three years old,at the Samaritan Hospital, with the écraseur. She was themother of seven children, the youngest of which is seven yearsold. She has been a sufferer since the birth of the last with aprofuse leucorrhceal discharge. Eighteen months ago the uterusprotruded; there was nothing malignant about it.

Mr. GEORGE MAY exhibited

A HEART IN WHICH GAS MIXED WITH BLOOD WERE FOUND,taken from a patient, who died suddenly from rheumatic fever;this was preceded by paralysis of the legs from cold taken in abath. Delirium and convulsions preceded death, and a quan-tity of air was found in the veins and heart. He believed that

this was the immediate cause of death.

Mr. T. HOLMES narrated the particulars of a case ofABSCESS IN THE WALLS OF THE HEART.

The patient was a child seven years of age, with caries of theos calcis, and who died of secondary deposits in the lungs andcellular tissue. Fibrous vegetations were present at the pos-terior part of the mitral valve corresponding to the side of thecavity of the abscess in the cardiac walls, but there was noopening leading into the latter. This abscess was a secondarydeposit, and had commenced within the pericardium.Mr. LEGGATT exhibited a

RUPTURE OF THE FEMORAL ARTERY,the result of disease, with a large ragged opening, appearing asif from ulceration within. The patient was a man seventy-three years old, stout and robust, the subject of gout for fortyyears. Ten years ago he had acute albuminuria, and latterlyhis urine was albuminous. He was subject to giddiness duringthe last four or five years, and numbness of the lower extremi-ties. Symptoms of angina pectoris were also present for the

! last four months. The whole of the affected limb was swollen,and filled with loose clots of blood about the thigh in the vici-nity of the rupture. Many of the bloodvessels were diseased,

and the heart and pericardium were found universally adherent.

WESTERN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SOCIETY.JAMES LANE, ESQ., IN THE CHAIR.

MR. MARTYN communicated a report ofTWO CASES OF DISEASE OF THE GBSOFHA&US, ONE

INVOLVING THE OPERATION OF TRACHEOTOMY.

The first related was that of Miss L-, aged thirty-eight.She has had symptoms of obstruction about the lower end ofthe oesophagus for ten years. She knows no cause, exceptingthat she is very thin and weak; she is otherwise healthy. Fora considerable time the difficulty of swallowing anything butfluids &c. has increased, and even liquid food is often partlyrejected. The presence of food causes great pain and distress,referred to about the lower part of the oesophagus. A moreconstant pain affects the left, upper, and back part of the neck,and top of the left shoulder, of which she complained much.She has no rest until any lodging food is rejected, and this isdone by urging, and a kind of vomiting, which happens moreor less nearly after every meal. It was observed, that how.ever long food might have remained, it was nerfectlv undi.