The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-26 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.---LIVERPOOL, MONDAY.

was a case of tetanus, the question arises, was it a case of
tetanus produced by strychnine ;' Tetanus may proceed
from natural causes as well as front the administration 01
poisons, and while the symptoms last they are the Same.
But in the course of the symptoms, and before the disease
reaches its consummation in the death of the patient, the
distinction beteeeen the two is marked by characteristics
which enable any one conversant with the subject to dis-
tinguish between them. We have been told on the highest
authority that the distinctions are these—natural tetanus
is a disease not of minutes, not of hours, hut of days.
It takes-sesay several other witnesses from three to four
days ; and will extend to a period of even three weeks
before the patient dies. Upon that point we have the
most abundant and conclusive evidence. We have the
evidence of Dr. Curling, of r. Brodie. of Dr. Daniel, a
gentleman who had seen something like 25 or 30 cases; we
have the evidence of a gentleman wna has practised 25
years in India, where these cases, arising from cold, are
infinitely more frequent ; and he gives exactly the same
description of the course which this disease invariably
takes. Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus is therefore out of
the question, upon the evidence which has been given.
Traumatic tetanus is brought on by the lesion of some part
of the body. But what was there in this case to show that
there was anything like a lesion at all. It seems that, in
the spring of the year 1055, Cook, having found certain
small spots manifest themselves in one Or ltwo rants of his
body, and having something of an ulcerated tongue and a
sore throat, considered that he was labouring under
symptoms of a particular character. He addressed
himself to Dr. Savage, who enjoined the discontinuance
of mercury. His injunction was obeyed, and the result
was that the patient was suffering neitlabr from disease no
wrong treatment, Dr. Savage says that long before the
summer advanced, every unsatisfactory symptom had entire-
ly gone, except that affection of the throat, to which thou-
Sands of people are subject. On the very day that he leaves
London to go into the country, a fortnight before the races,
his stepfather, who accompanied him to the station, congra-
tulated him unon his healthy and vigorous appearance, and
the young man, conscious of a restored state of health,
struck his breast, and said "He was well, very well."
It is said that he had exhibited his tongue to witnesses,
and applied for a mercurial wash, but it is clear that,
although he had at one time adopted that course, he
had, under the recommendation of br. Savage, got
rid of it, and there is no pretence for saying he was suf-
fering under any syphilitic affection of any kind. The fact
has been negatived by a man of the highest authority and
eminence. There was nothing about the man which would
warrant the supposition that there was anything of that
character in any part of his body when the tetanus set in.
Bat then it is suggested that this may be a case of idiopathic
tetanus proceeding from—what ? They say that Cook was
a man of a delicate constitution, subject to excitement ; that
he had something the matter with his chest; that in addition
to having something the matter with his chest, he had the
diseased condition of throat; and putting all these things
together, they say that if the man took cold he might get
idiopathic tetanus. Dr. Nunneley, who comes here for the
purpose of inducing you to believe there was something like
idiopathictetanus, goes through supposed infirmities, and
talks about his excitability, his delicacy of chest, his
affection of the throat, and he says these things would
predispose to idiopathic tetanus if he took colds. But
what evidence is there that he did take cold ? Not the
slightest in the world. There is not the smallest pretence
that he ever complained of a cold, or was treated for a cold.
Dr. Nunneley talked to you about certain excitements being
the occasion of idiopathic tetanus. You remember the
sort of excitement of which he spoke. They are unworthy
of your notice. They were topics discreditable to be put
forward by a witness as worthy of your consideration. But,
suppose for a single moment that excitement at the time
could produce any such effect, where is the excitement
manifested by Cook as leading to the supposed disease ?
They say that the man when he won his money at
Shrewsbury was for a moment excited. I will not deny
that he was overpowered with emotions of joy. But those
emotions subsided, and we have no further trace of them
from that time to: the moment of his death. He is taken
ill. lie goes to Rugelev.y He is taken ill there
again. When he is ill, like most people, he is
low sp"rled: As soon as he gets a little better,
ho is cheerful and happy. He invites his friends and con-
verses with them. On the night of his death his conversa-
tion is cheerful. LI eis mirthful and happy, little thinking
poor fellow, of the fate that was depending over him. He is
cheerful, and talks of the future, but not in language of
excitement. What pretence is there for this idle story about
excitement ? None whatever. But even if there were ex-
citement or depression—if these things were capable of pro-
ducing idiopathic tetanus, the character of the disease is so
eQsentially different that it is impossible to mistake the two.
What are the cases which they attempt to set up against us ?
They brought forward a Mary Watson, who, with a gentle-
man, came all the way from some place in Scotland to tell
us that a girl had been ill all day, that she is taken worse at
night, that she gets well in a short time, and goes about her
business. That is a case which they brought here to be
compared with the death agony of this man. These are the
sort of cases with which they attempt to meet such a case as
is spoken to hr re. You have, upon this point, the evidence
of men of the highest competency and most unquestionable
integrity, and upon their evidence, I am satisfied, you can
come to no other conclusion than that this was not a case of
either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus. But, then, various
attempts have been made to set up different causes as capable
of producing this tetanic disease. And first, we have the
theory of general convulsions ; and Dr. Nunneley having
gone through the beadroll of the supposed infirmities of
Cook, says, "Oh, this may have been a case of general
convulsions—l have known general convulsions assuming a
tetanic character !" I said to him, " Have you ever seen
one single case in which death arising from general convul•
sions, accompanied with tetanic symptoms, has not ended in
the unconsciousness of the patient ?" He says, " No I never
heard of such a case, not one ; but in some book or other, I
am told, there is some such case reported," and he cites, for
that purpose, as an authority for general convulsions being
accompanied with tetanic symptoms, Dr. Copland.
Now, Dr. Copland might have been called, but was not
called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw
out, because it is, unfortunately, easier for the case to gather
together from the east and from the west practitioners of
more or less celebrity, than to bring to bear on the subject
the light of science as treasured in the books of the eminent
practitioners whom you have seen. But ,I say, as regards
general convulsions, the distinction is plain. If they des-
troy the patient they destroy consciousness. But here, un-
questionably, at the very last moment, until Cook's heart
ceased to beat, his consciousness remained. But then
comes another supposed condition, from which death in this
form is said to have resulted, and that is the cause intended
to be set up by a very eminent practitioner, Dr. Partridge.
it seems that in the post mortem examination of Cook,
when the spinal marrow was investigated, some granules
were found, and it is said these may have occasioned tetanic
convulsions similar to those found in Cook. He is called to
prove that this was a case of what is called arachnitis,
arising from granules. I called his attention to the symptoms
in Cook's case, and I asked him in simple terms whether
looking at these symptoms, he would pledge his reputation
in the face of the medical world, and in the face of this
court, that this was a case of arachnitis. He would not do
so, and the case of arachnitis went. Then we have a gen-
tleman who comes all the way from Scotland to inform us,
as the next proposition, that Cock's was a case of epileptic
convulsions with tetanic complications. Well, I asked him
the question, " Did you ever know of epilepsy, with or
without tetanic complication, in which consciousness was not
destroyed before the patient died ? His reply was, " No, I
cannot say that I ever did, but I have read in some book that
such a case has occurred." "Is there anything to make
you think this was epilepsey ?"—" It may have been epilepsey,
because I don't know what else it was." " But you must admit
that epilepsy is characterised generally by loss of conscious-
nes, ? what difference would the tetanic complications have
made." That he was unable to explain. Having gone through '
these three sets of diseases—general convulsions, arachnitis
epilepsy proper, and epilepsy with tetanic complications, I
supposed we had pretty nearly exhausted the whole of these
scientific theories. But we are destined to have another,
and that assumed the formidable name of angina pectoris.
The gentleman who was called yesterday, and who talked
of angina pectoris, would not have escaped so easily if
I had been in possession of the books to which he referred,
for I should have been able to expose the ignorance,
the presumption of the assertions he dared to make. I
say ignorance and presumption, and what is worse, an in-
tention to deceive. I assert it in the face of the whole
medical profession, and lam sure I can prove it. These
medical witnesses, one and all, differ in the views they take
on the subject; but there is a remarkable coincidence
between the views of some of them and the views of those
who have been examined on the other side. Dr. Partridge,
Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Letheby, the most eminent of the
witnesses whom my learned friend has called, agreed with
the statements of Dr. Brodie and other witnesses, that in
the whole of their experience, and in the whole range of
their learning and observations they know of no known
disease to which the symptoms in Cook's case can be
referred. If it be the fact that there is no known disease
which can account for such symptoms as those in Cook's
case, and that they are referable to poison alone, can you
have any doubt that that poison is strychnia ? I think,
I may say that the witnesses called for the defence admit
this, that, from the time the paroyxsm set in, of which Cook
died, until the time of his death, the symptoms are pre-
cisely similar to that of tetanus by strychnine. But then,
they say, that the period which elapsed between the supposed
administration of the poison and the first appearance of the
symptoms is longer than they have observed in the animals
on
which which
arisesthey
is havethis
—that
Tah e
knownfirst
observationdifference
between animal and human life, in the power with which
certain specific things acted upon. their organisation.
It may well be that poison administered to a rabbit
will produce its effect in a given time. It by no
same means
m e thaton
an
nt will
animal o
produce
t.
athe
differentsam effectee s
e rii
pnt tohne.
Still less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful
influence in the same time on a human subject. But it is
perfectly notorious that the rapidity with which the poison
begins to work depends mainly upon the mode of its
administration. If it is administered in a fluid state, it acts
with greater rapidity. If it is given in a solid state, its effects