Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 23.djvu/681

Rh was a perfect model of successful hygienic administration. Struggling with distressing and dangerous disease he continued to lead a life of intellectual activity not often accomplished by the most robust; and when, in 1860, the Army Medical School was established by Lord Herbert of Lea, Sir James Clark had no hesitation in advising that Dr. Parkes should be secured if possible as the Professor of Hygiene. How excellent the foresight of that eminent physician was, we all know, for Dr. Parkes was not only the first professor of the science in this country in point of time, but also the first in every sense of the word. The publication of his well-known "Manual of Practical Hygiene" gave us for the first time a work on the subject which was not merely a string of opinions and surmises, but at every point brought opinion to the test of figure and experiment, where it was possible, and thus laid the foundation for a real science in the future. Similarly with his teaching he pressed upon the Government to establish practical laboratories for his pupils, where they could do for themselves as much of the experimental work as time and opportunity allowed; and he impressed upon those who studied under him the necessity of testing everything by actual investigation and bringing all statements to the proof of figures before accepting them as true. There was never probably a man of calmer and more judicial mind, a man more rigidly critical of his own work, or more kindly disposed to allow every credit to the work of others. Having known him personally for many years, during thirteen of which I was his assistant and colleague, I can bear confident testimony to the exceeding beauty of his character, in which "sweetness and light" were never more truly displayed, and the scrupulous accuracy and care with which every investigation of his was carried out. The science of hygiene could have no purer and better founder and its votaries no brighter and more spotless example.—Lancet.



N article in the June number of "The Popular Science Monthly" for 1883, on the subject of "Our Marriage and Divorce Laws," it seems to me, is worthy of further notice.

We have no occasion to find fault with the picture which the writer draws of the divorce laws of many of the States. It is highly probable that the cause of the deplorable disregard of the binding force of the marriage tie, in certain of the Eastern States, must be sought for outside of the statute laws themselves. Laws or constitutions have but little value except public opinion demands their enforcement. 