Page:Treatise on poisons in relation to medical jurisprudence, physiology, and the practice of physic (IA treatiseonpoison00chriuoft).pdf/341

 have arisen from the calomel having been imperfectly prepared and adulterated with a little corrosive sublimate? Or may they be explained by reference to the fact, that the presence of hydrochlorates in solution, particularly hydrochlorate of ammonia, tends to convert calomel into corrosive sublimate. Mr. Alfred Taylor has made some experiments, to show that the latter explanation will not suffice.

Meanwhile, taking the facts as they stand, it is plain that great caution must be used in ascribing violent irritant properties generally, or even symptoms of irritant poisoning in a particular case, to large doses of calomel.

With the view of illustrating the importance of the preceding observations, it may be useful to mention here the heads of a case already briefly alluded to for another purpose, the trial of William Paterson for murder (319). His wife during the month previous to her death had two attacks of diarrhœa, with an interval of a fortnight between them. On the second occasion it became profuse and exhausting, but without any material pain or considerable vomiting; looseness of the teeth and salivation ensued, and she died in nine days. On examination of the body, the anus was found excoriated, the whole intestines checkered with dark patches, and the stomach red, ulcerated, and spotted with black, warty excrescences; but the late Dr. Cleghorn of Glasgow could not detect any poison by chemical analysis. It was proved that the prisoner, besides procuring, a few months before his wife's death, a variety of poisons, such as hydrochloric acid, cantharides, and arsenic, had also on different occasions during her last illness purchased in a suspicious manner four doses of calomel varying from 30 to 60 grains each. Among the various ways in which he was charged with having poisoned the deceased, that which was best borne out by the general as well as medical facts consisted in his taking advantage of an existing inflammation of the mucous membrane of the bowels,—whether arising from a natural cause or from poison it was in this view of the case immaterial to inquire,—and keeping up and aggravating the inflammation by purposely administering at intervals large doses of calomel. On the trial Dr. Cleghorn and other witnesses gave their opinion that the doses purchased by the prisoner, if administered, would cause the symptoms and morbid appearances observed in the case. On the other hand, the late Dr. Gordon deposed to the effect, that all the symptoms of the case might arise under the operation of natural disease, and that such doses of calomel were by no means necessarily injurious; the late Mr. John Bell deposed, that it had even been given in much larger doses without injury; and the profession