feebleness of the pulse. Three days afterwards the symptoms increased still more. She complained of intolerable burning and spasms of the throat, which, as well as the mouth, was excessively inflamed,—of violent burning pain in the stomach and bowels,—of burning in the fundament and genitals, both of which were inflamed even to gangrene,—of indescribable anxiety and anguish about the heart; and she died the following day, death being proceded by subsultus, delirium, and insensibility.[1] Or take the case in the trial of Miss Blandy. On two successive evenings, immediately after taking some gruel which had been prepared by the prisoner, Mr. Blandy was attacked with pricking and burning of the tongue, throat, stomach, and bowels, and with vomiting and purging. Five days after, when the symptoms were fully formed, he had inflamed pimples round the lips, and a sense of burning in the mouth; the nostrils were similarly affected; the eyes were bloodshot and affected with burning pain; the tongue was swollen, the throat red and excoriated, and in both there was a tormenting sense of burning; he had likewise swelling, with pricking and burning pain of the belly; excoriations and ulcers around the anus and intolerable burning there; vomiting and bloody diarrhœa; a low, tremulous pulse, laborious respiration, and great difficulty in speaking and swallowing. In this state he lingered several days, death supervening nine days after the first suspected basin of gruel was taken.[2] Can the symptoms, in these two cases, attacking, as they did, at one and the same time, the whole mucous membranes, be imitated by any natural combination of symptoms? Viewing the endless variety and wonderful complexity of the phenomena of disease, the practitioner will probably, and with justice, reply that a natural combination of the kind is possible. But if his attention is confined, as in strictures it ought to real occurrences,—if he is required to speak only from actual experience, personal or derived, it is exceedingly questionable whether any one could say he had ever seen or read of such a case. At all events, if a medical witness had to give his opinion from symptoms only in such a case as that of Mr. Blandy, or that described by Bachmann, he would certainly be justified in declaring that poisoning was highly probable; and, admitting general poisoning to be proved, he would, it is likely, fix on arsenic as the substance which could most easily produce the effects.
Let him next, however, take also into consideration the nervous affections that sometimes either immediately follow the inflammation of the mucous membranes, or become united with it when it has existed a few days; and confining his attention still to actual occurrences, let him reflect on the symptoms in Dr. Roget's case, in which there was first violent inflammation of the whole alimentary canal, and then regular and obstinate epilepsy (p. 245), or on those in Dehaen's patient, in whom the nervous disorder was partial palsy (p. 247). On reconsidering these narratives, still greater reason will appear for
