488

ing of the market with an indefinite number of copies, worn ornot. At present, the work, (in Seventeen Parts,) unbound,with the volume of Commentaries, is published at ae10 12s. If500 subscribers are obtained to the proposed new issue, theplates and Commentaries will be supplied to them at X6 6s.,less than eighteen-pence a plate, without charge for thevolume of 560 pages, the money value of which, in the tradeof bookselling, is estimated at about a guinea. We oftenspoke of this work during the period of its publication inParts, referring to the drawings as being exceedingly correct,obviously made from ablv dissected subjects, and conveyingthe history and relation of the various parts at the first in-spection, strongly recommending the work to the profession.The publishers now speak of the proposed new price of thework as being below that of the cheapest of all modern publi-cations ; and recognising in it, ourselves, a production yet moreworthy of recommendation, in proportion to the cheapnesswith which it is made generally accessible, we take thislengthened notice of the project, in favour of which, " sub-scribers are requested to favour the publishers withtheir namesas soon as possible, either direct, or through their respectivebooksellers," an announcement which we cheerfully copy intothis portion of our journal.

PUNISHMENT BY FLOGGING.

REPLY TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF SIR GEORGE BALLINGALL, ONPORTIONS OF THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DELIVERED AT THELATE INQUEST AT HOUNSLOW.

BY ERASMUS WILSON, F.R.S.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-The Monthly Journal of Medical Science for the pre-sent month contains an article with the following title :-" Observations on the Case of the Soldier White, whose deathtook place some time after the infliction of Punishment byFlogging. By Sir George Ballingall, M.D., F.R.S.E., Professorof Military Surgery in the University of Edinburgh, &c." Tothis article the Editors of the above Journal append a notice,that they suppress a review of the conflicting medical evidencein the Hounslow case," in consequence of " considering thatSir George Ballingall’s observations,from the position he holds,and the experience he has had in such matters, must be muchmore valuable" to their readers.As the object of Sir George Ballingall’s observations appears

to be to show that the opinion given by me at the Hounslowinquest, and, consequently, the judgment of the jury, wereincorrect, I shall feel much obliged by your affording mespace for making a few comments on the arguments adducedby that gentleman.

Sir George Ballingall commences by remarking, that" havingbeen repeatedly asked his opinion" on the Hounslow case,he yields with reluctance to these solicitations. He thenexpresses some doubt as to whether, being a military man, liewill be likely to obtain an " impartial hearing;" and hesuggests, as a possible disadvantage to his cause, that, onaccount of temporary country retirement, he is "debarredfrom access to books and papers which he could have wishedto consult."

I think that Sir George Ballingall may quiet his mind withregard to any doubt of an " impartial hearirg" from thereaders of THE LANCET, nor do I at all comprehend the groundsof any such doubt. The question is, in a twofold sense, onewhich your readers are fully competent to decide upon justly;for it is, firstly, a medical question, and secondly, a questionof common sense. With regard to the deprivation of "booksand papers," to which Sir George refers, I should be inclinedto think this a real advantage, inasmuch as it is his opiniononly which is asked, and which he prepares to answer. Booksand papers, in my judgment, as frequently tend to complicateas to illuminate a plain question.

Sir George Ballingall next proceeds to give his opinion,founded on "most mature deliberation," in the followingwords :-

" As to the case of the soldier White, of the 7th Hussars,after the most mature consideration, I can only look upon itas one of thoracic inflammation, supervening from atmosphericchanges, in the case of an individual who had recently beensubjected to corporeal punishment; not necessarilv connectedwith that punishment, except in so far that I hold every manwho may have undergone such punishment, and who may, inconsequence, have been confined to hospital, to be in a condi-tion which renders him more than usually susceptible of mor-

bid influences, and particularly of those arising from atmo-spheric causes."Now, Sir, so far as I can comprehend the preceding passage,

its meaning appears to me to be as follows:—" Thoracic in-flammation," which was the proximate cazr,se of ’Vhite’s death,depended for its exciti7ig cause on "atmospheric changes," thepredisposition to such thoracic inflammation-in other words,the predisposing cause-being corporeal punishment. Let ussuppose Sir George Ballingall to have delivered this opinionbefore a jury: the question that would naturally follow fromthe coroner would be the following:-If the deceased had notbeen flogged, would he, in your opinion, have been alive at thepresent time? What would have been Sir George Ballingall’sanswer to this question? It is evident what it must have beenif it were in accordance with the opinion at which he hadarrived after " most mature consideration. "

Sir George Ballingall then proceeds to say-" On the evi-dence given by Mr. Wilson as to the very peculiar state inwhich he found the deep-seated muscles of the back, I refrainfrom comment, for this simple reason, that his views are to menot only novel, but in a great measure unintelligible." Thenovel views to which Sir George refers are, I apprehend, thepopular explanation which I gave at the inquest of the causeof the pulpy conversion of the muscles. I am unable myselfto discover anything novel in a pulpy softening of tissues re-sulting from the combined effects of laceration, effusion ofblood, and inflammation. Softening of the brain is a commonoccurrence ; softening of muscular tissue is an analogouschange, less frequent, undoubtedly, but it is one which is inperfect accordance with the laws of disease. Or, was it myobservation, that this pulpy condition of the muscles existingin close relation with the pleura was a possible cause of thepleuritis which was found on that side of the chest, and moststrikingly developed at the spot corresponding in situationwith the morbid alteration of the muscles, which was the"novel view ?" I can assure Sir George Ballingall that "matureconsideration" on this fact has added strength to my belief thatthis was the real cause of the pleuritis.

- -

These, however, are questions of medical theory concerningwhich medical men are warranted in entertaining any opinionsthey may choose. They do not affect the main question-namely, the cause of the man’s death. On this point, a jury ofmen possessed of common sense do not care to listen to amedical dissertation on the relative dependencies of predis-posing, exciting, or proximate causes; they simply require toknow what, in the opinion of the medical man, is the cause ofdeath. Sir George Ballingall would say, inflammation of thecontents of the chest from exposure to cold. But what re-lation had the flogging with the taking cold? Sir George Bal-lingall distinctly avers that the flogging was the cause of thecold, and the cold of the man’s death. No more is requiredof him, and, I may add, no less.

Sir George Ballingall proceeds, in the next place, "to ques-tion" what he calls " one assertion in this evidence"-namely," that the morbid appearances observed within the thorax inthe case of White are those uniformly observed in such cases."Sir George is certainly right in questioning such an assertion,if it were ever made, and by whomsoever made, since absoluteuniformity of result is wholly irreconcilable with vital laws.11 I have been called upon," Sir George remarks, " to witnessthe infliction, or to conduct the treatment, of nearly two hun-dred cases of corporeal punishment, and in no one of these,so far as my recollection serves me, has there been any pro-minent or dangerous symptoms of thoracic inflammation."One of these men died of dysentery, one of hospital gangrene,and one of tetanus. " It is to profuse suppuration, to slough-ing, or to hospital gangrene, that I have been accustomed tolook as the sources of danger."Such is Sir George Ballingall’s experience. On the other

hand, Lord Hardinge, in his evidence on military punish-ment, stated, on medical authority, that the striking ofa culprit with the flat of a sword on the back for punishmentaffects the chest so severely, if not done with the utmostcaution, that consumption, and other serious lingering com-plaints, and spitting of blood, will ensue.

Again: Serjeant Armstrong, who was flogged by commandof General Wall, and died in consequence, passed blood, bothby urine and stool, after his punishment, and the surgeon whoattended him stated that the flogging occasioned disease of hislungs. Moreover, Dr. Kirchoff reports, that in the army ofthe Netherlands, stripes on the back cause fcctal inflammatoryaffections of the chest.Now, Sir, it does appear to me that these observations are

a sufficient warrant for the belief which I expressed at theHounslow inquest, that diseases of the thoracic viscera are

489

far from being an uncommon result of corporeal punishment.Besides, Sir George Ballingall’s assertion, that in the 200cases above referred to there had not been any prominentor dangerous symptoms of thoracic inflammation," is most

disagreeably qualified by the adjectives " prominent" and" dangerous." I would ask-What was the proportion ofthoracic disease, of whatever kind ? And I would further

inquire-For what period after punishment were those menobserved Might they not, months after, nay, perhaps years,have languished with disease of the thoracic viscera, the seedsof which had been sown by the punishment to which theyhad been subjected.In the next paragraph, Sir George Ballingall quotes his

experience in post-mortem examinations for pathologicalpurposes, and concludes his remarks with the informationthat his collective observation " does not enable him to hazardan opinion as to the frequency of the connexion betweencorporeal punishment and thoracic inflammation." I amquite ready to give Sir George credit for the truth of thisremark; but I could wish him to remember that such aninquiry is altogether beside the question. The occurrence ofsuch a combination in one single instance is sufficient toestablish its possibility; and that combination was undoubtedlypresent in the soldier White.

I pass over, as having no direct bearing on the subject, SirGeorge Ballingall’s observations on burns, and on the natureof the relations subsisting between the skin and the internalorgans, and especially the mucous membrane. That such arelation exists, Sir George does not dispute; but he considersthat the law which governs its action is one of susceptibilityof the weaker organ. Sir George Ballingall is not preparedto acknowledge the analogy between the injury to the skinproduced by a burn, and that which is effected by a militaryflogging, and he considers that the parallel between them"has been pushed too far." And he furthermore makes theextraordinary statement, that "we have no instances of deathfrom burns when the injury is confined to so limited a surfaceas that involved in the ordinary mode of inflicting corporealpunishment." Now, in the case of White, the surface involvedin the laceration caused by the lash extended from the napeof the neck to the lower part of the thorax in length, andfrom one shoulder across to the other in breadth-thewounded surface being, according to the entry made in thesurgeon’s book, " lacerated and swollen."

Sir George Ballingall concludes this paragraph with a slyhint that the removal of the skin of the back, some days pre-viously to my examination, must have added much to thedifficulty of my speaking " with so much confidence and pre-cision as to the morbid state of the muscles, whether super-ficial or deep-seated." I can assure Sir George that therewas no difficulty at all in the matter; the deep muscles, ofwhich alone I spoke, were so fresh as to possess all theiranatomical characters uninjured; they were in a state per-fectly fit for demonstration in the anatomical theatre; and intheir deepest part was the pulpy disorganization to which Ireferred, distinctly circumscribed, existing on one side of thechest only-namely, the left, and noted by me before I knewon which side the pleuritis existed.But Sir George Ballingall is probably in possession of that

part of the evidence given at the inquest, in which it wasstated by Dr. Hall (during my absence from the room, inobedience to the direction of the coroner) that the change inthe muscles which I had observed was "the first stage ofputrefaction." I have given, above, the strongest assurancein my power that such was not the case; and I cannotbelieve that any other man in the profession would imputeto me an inability to distinguish between a pathologicalchange in muscular tissue and a state of incipient putrefac-tion. The difference was so striking and so manifest, that Ishould have been ashamed of a student of the first sessionwho could not have made the distinction. Dr. Hall furtherventures to assign a cause for the change occurring only onthe left side, that side of the chest being, he says," filled withdiseased and disorganized viscera and highly putrid fluids."Now, I must remind Dr. Hall, that disease and disorganiza-tion are not putridity, and therefore we will set aside the" diseased and disorganized viscera," and inquire only into theposition of the " putrid fluids." The man died in the eveningof Saturday, and was opened on Monday. At this inspection,the barrier between the two sides of the chest was brokendown, and consequently the "putrid fluids" occupied bothsi .es equally. If, therefore, Dr. Hall’s hypothesis were cor-rect, a similar change should have been found in the musclesof both sides of the thorax, which was not the case. Dr. Hallshould recollect, that what I stated at the inquest, with regard

to the pulpy condition of the muscular tissue, was not anopinion, but a statement of fact, and moreover confirmed byoath.

In conclusion, Sir, I beg to observe, that in requesting thepublication of the comments contained in this communication,I have had no other object in view than that of the elucida-tion of truth. For Sir George Ballingall I entertain thehighest sentiment of respect, and it would give me much pain,if I thought that in anything I have written I had oversteppedthe bounds of courtesy which I feel to be due to him.Hitherto, I have taken no part in the disquisitions to whichthe Hounslow inquest has given rise; but the observations ofSir George Ballingall have shown me the necessity of layingthe whole case, such as it was presented to me for my judg-ment, before the profession-a duty which, with the aid ofTHE LANCET, I shall take an early occasion to perform.-Ihave the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

ERASMUS WILSON.

THE ARMY SURGEON AN EXECUTIONER.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

, SIR,—Having perused, with much satisfaction, certain re-marks contained in your own journal, and in a recent numberof the Medico-Chirurgical Review, upon the degrading andpainful office which is cast upon the military surgeon, of de-ciding how much torture a poor wretch can endure withoutdanger of immediate death, you may judge of the surpriseand indignation with which I read the following paragraph inthe Daily News of Oct. 2nd :-"BRANDING A DESERTER.-Yesterday morning, at Windsor,

the 2nd battalion of Scots Fusileers, in garrison at that place,were drawn up in a hollow square, for the purpose of witnes-sing the branding with the letter’ D’ the arm of the private,John Saddler, who had been tried by a regimental court-martial for desertion, and found guilty of the offence. The

charges and sentence having been read over, the operationwas performed by the surgeon of the regiment, it occupying buta few minutes."How ignorant may we be of what is passing around us!

Little did I believe that a punishment which has been dis-continued in civil life, in consequence of public opinion revolt-ing against such brutal proceedings, was still retained for theunfortunate soldier, who seems destined to suffer what noother class, however abject, is submitted to. Still less did Iimagine that this disgusting proceeding, which in civil lifewas always one of Jack Ketch’s meaner " operations," was con-signed to the hands of an educated gentleman. It seemsalmost incredible that the assumption of the functions of theexecutioner can be endured by such.-I am, Sir, yours,

A LOOKER-ON.

DIFFICULTY OF SEEING AN INMATE OF ST. LUKE’SHOSPITAL.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

! SIR,— Perhaps you will be kind enough to publish, in thepages of your valuable journal, the particulars of a disappoint-ment I met with, when in London last week, on visitingSt. Luke’s Hospital, with the intention of seeing an inmate ofthat institution, in order that others, who are unacquaintedwith the necessary preliminaries for admission, may be sparedthe necessity of submitting to a similar grievance. The cir-cumstances are briefly these :-

I left England, a few weeks ago, for the purpose of seekingthe restoration of my health by a visit to the continent, andreturned, by Rotterdam, to London, purposely with the in-tention of visiting Mrs. W., at the above institution, whoformerlv resided, and had the greater part of a large family, inthis town, during which period I was her medical attendant,and who, upon removing to Manchester, became the subjectof occasional attacks of mental aberration. At Manchester,as well as in her present abode, when perfectly free from herdisease, she had often expressed to her friends a great desireto see her old medical attendant, which being communicatedto me, I resolved, the first time I could conveniently do so,to see her, and accordingly proceeded, last Tuesday, to theestablishment, when I was most courteously received by agentleman, whom I supposed to be the steward of the lios-pital. That gentleman, on learning the object of my visit,immediately replied, that he had not the slightest objectionto my seeing the lady, and that he would acquaint the medicalofficer with the nature of my errand. I did not imaginethere could be the least impediment ; but it turned out