these observations, insisting that, in those he made himself with the most potent poisons, he never failed to witness, before the poison began to act, an interval considerably longer than what had been observed by others, and longer also than what he had found sufficient for the blood to complete the round of the circulation; that, for example, the wourali poison injected into the femoral or jugular vein did not begin to act for twenty seconds, conia and tobacco for fifteen seconds, and extract of nux vomica for twelve seconds; and that hydrocyanic acid dropped on the tongue did not act for eleven seconds if the animal was allowed to inhale its vapour, and not for sixteen seconds, if direct access to the lungs was prevented by making the animal breathe through a tube in the windpipe. But Mr. Blake cannot rid himself thus summarily of the positive facts which stand in his way. Duly weighed, the balance of testimony is in favour of those whose accuracy he impugns. For in the first place, they had not, like him, a theory to build up with their results, but were observing, most of them at least, the simple fact of the celerity of action. Then, their result is an affirmation or positive statement, and his merely a negative one: They may perfectly well have observed what he was not so fortunate as to witness. And lastly, it is not unreasonable to claim for Sir B. Brodie, Dr. Freer, Mr. Macaulay, and Mr. Taylor, all of them practitioners of experience, the faculty of noting time as accurately as Mr. Blake himself. As for my own observations, I feel confident they could not have been made more carefully, and that I had at the moment no preconceived views which the results upheld, but, if anything, rather the reverse.
It is impossible therefore to concede, that Mr. Blake's inquiries, merely because they are at variance with prior results, apparently not less precise and exact than his own, put an end to the argument which has been drawn, in favour of the existence of a sympathetic action, from the extreme swiftness of the operation of some poisons. At the same time, on a dispassionate view of the whole investigation, it must be granted to be doubtful, whether this argument can be now appealed to in its present shape with the confidence which is desirable. And on the whole, the velocity of the circulation on the one hand, and the celerity of the action of certain poisons on the other, are both of them so very great, and the comparative observation of the time occupied by the two phenomena respectively becomes in consequence so difficult and precarious, that it seems unsafe to found upon such an inquiry a confident deduction on either side of so important a physiological question as the existence or non-existence of an action of poisons by sympathy.
In concluding these statements it is necessary to notice certain positive arguments which have been brought against the doctrine of nervous transmission.
It is alleged to be contrary to nature's rule to adopt two ways of attaining the same end; and therefore, that, since many poisons undoubtedly act through absorption, it is unphilosophical to hold that others act by sympathy. There seems no sound reason, however, for
