184

Surgeons men practising wholly as apothecaries-i. e., derivingtheir remuneration solely from a charge for the drugs sup-plied, it does certainly appear to me ill the highest degreeunjust to apply the same rule to the great body of provincialsurgeons, some of whom enjoy a reputation for surgical skillnot inferior to that of the officers of the metropolitan hos-pitals."

Dr. Robinson’s letter will well repay a perusal.

New InventionsIN AID OF THE

PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY.

The Biberon, a Neiv Feeding-Bottle. Elam, Oxford-street.WE have seldom seen anything more beautiful or betteradapted for its use than the Biberons, or feeding-bottles, forinfants, invented by M. Darbo, of Paris, and introduced intothis country by Mr. Elam, of Oxford-street. Though theyare of recent invention, they have obtained great celebrity,and have come into general use in Paris. The nipple ofthe Biberon is made of cork, the superiority of which overIndian-rubber, or calves’ teats, is at once apparent. It has notthe repulsive taste or smell of the former, neither can itputrefy, as the latter always do. The cork-nipple beinghollow and elastic, the flow of milk is never interrupted; butcalves’ teats and India-rubber nipples becoming flattened bythe pressure of the child’s lips in sucking, the supply of milkis stopped-a very obvious disadvantage. The Biberon is soconstructed, air being admitted through a delicate spiral tube,that the child cannot suck any air, which alone is a strongrecommendation. The supply is regulated by a little ivorypin, which, if inserted into the tube, and fixed in either ofthe divisions for that purpose, diminishes the quantity, butif taken away altogether, enables the child to feed as fast asmay be desirable. Lastly, the Biberon is clean, compact,portable, and very easily kept in order.

MR. SYME ON STRICTURE OF THE URETHRA,AND HIS COMMENTATORS.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

THE LANCET of Saturday last, it is alleged that apatient, whose case was related in my Treatise on " Strictureof the Urethra," instead of being rescued from extreme suffer-ing, and restored to perfect health, as I have stated, is, in truth," almost, if not quite as bad as before the operation." I amat a loss to imagine what circumstance in my history as ateacher or writer should have led you, without inquiry, topublish such a charge. It is utterly and entirely false. Thegentleman referred to is now in Edinburgh, where he has re-sided ever since the operation. He suffers no trouble or in-convenience from stricture, and enjoys the most perfecthealth.Having been made the vehicle of a calumny so injurious

and unfounded, you will, I trust, take the earliest oppor-tunity of giving it a distinct contradiction. The insolent and

unbecoming letter of your correspondent neither requires nordeserves any farther notice from me.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,Edinburgh, Feb. 1851. JAMES SYME.

P.S.-You have withheld from your readers a case of stric-ture treated publicly by me in the Royal Infirmary of Edin-burgh, and in its stead published a groundless imputation onmy veracity. Is it thus that THE LANCET proposes to advance Ithe cause of truth ? I

*.* Verily, journalism is not a bed of roses ! Amidst the I

conflict of opinions entertained by medical authors and prac-titioners, the editor of a journal like THE LANCET, with itshost of correspondents, has no easy task to perform. If he

holds the scales of Justice as firmly and steadily as thoughthey were suspended from a rock, still he would fail to givesatisfaction to all parties, and by producing discontent, hemust often expose himself to the imputation of being influ-enced in his conduct by improper motives. Thus it has been,thus it is, and thus it will be. Fortified, however, by the con-

JAMES SYME.

viction that we have discharged our public duty fairly in thematter of which Mr. Syme complains, we cannot admit thathe has any just cause of complaint against the course of pro-ceeding we have adopted. We have felt-on several occasionsthat Mr. Syme has been unjustly assailed, consequently wehave sternly and steadily refused to allow him to be made thesubject of severe and cutting criticism by anonymous writers,whose communications by dozens have been excluded fromour columns. Further, other parties, who attached theirnames to their communications, entered the field against Mr.Syme, with long records purporting to be collections of au-thenticated cases in which it was alleged Mr. Syme had ope-rated. They were rejected, because we considered thatsuch volunteer champions as the writers had no legitimatebusiness in the controversy that had been raised. In conse-

quence of several of these exclusions we have been somewhat

grossly assailed by the writers. When the letter of Mr. Gay,published in THE LANCET of last week, at p. 159, was placedin our hands, it was represented to us that it was a reply fromMr. Gay to an attack that had been made upon him by Mr.Syme in the Edinburgh Monthly Journal. We certainly didnot approve of the tone of the letter; but are we toexclude everything from our columns of which we dis-

approve ? If such were to be the rule of our policy,THE LANCET would soon become an insipid, worthless

production-the mere vehicle of puffing and vapid twaddle.We have already stated, and we repeat, that we disapproved,and still disapprove, of the tone of Mr. Gay’s letter, and wemight express our dissent even more strongly, but, after all,who is Mr. Gay? He is a gentleman of unimpeached and un-impeachable integrity; he is an hospital-surgeon of long stand-ing, and he occupies a position amongst the first-rank surgeonsof the metropolis. He is not, then, an unworthy adversaryeven for so distinguished a surgeon as Mr. Syme. He is no

anonymous assailant; and considering that his letter was placedin our hands as a reply to an attack which had been madeupon the writer of it by Mr. Syme, we feel confident that Mr.Syme himself, on further reflection, will be of opinion that we,at any rate, had no desire to expose him to either injury orthe slightest annoyance.Mr. Syme appears to think that we intentionally and pur-

posely "withheld" the report now published at page 176, whichhe sent to us for publication last week. It was sent to the

printer for insertion, but, with many other articles, it was

reluctantly omitted, by direction of the sub-editor. Thatsome communications must be excluded every week, to theannoyance of our contributors, is sufficiently evident, when itis stated that there are at this moment awaiting publication,upwards of 150 essays, lectures, reports, &c., some of whichhave been in our possession many months.-ED. L.

TRANSMISSION OF IMPRESSIONS BY THE SPINALMARROw.-M. Brown Séquard recently read a paper before theAcademy of Sciences of Paris, wherein he maintains that thistransmission is carried on in a decussating manner-viz , that theright half of the medulla spinalis transmits, in a great measure,the impressions received on the left side of the body, and viceversâ. He rests his opinion on the following experiments :-Onelateral half of the spinal marrow of an animal belonging to themammalia was cut across opposite the tenth dorsal vertebra, andthe hind limb on the same side was found not only fully alive tosensation, but more so than in the normal state ; whilst the cor-

responding limb on the other side possessed the faculty of sensa-tion in a less degree than in the usual condition. When the samehemi-section is made opposite the third cervical vertebra, boththe fore and hind limb of the same side seem to be more sensitivethan is normally the case; whilst the limbs on the other side areless so. If a few complete sections along the lateral half of themarrow be made, sensation remains unaltered on the divided side,and is almost lost on the other. M. Brown Sequard maintainsthat it is principally in the medulla that the decussating of sensi-

tive fibres takes place ; ahd that, if there are any such fibreswhich, arising from the limbs, rise up to the brain, there to effect

their interlacement, these must be in a very small number.