The correspondence relating to the Lancet Sanitary Commission : (which appeared lately in The Times) / examined by James Caesar Durnford, John A. Power and Raymond S. Daniell ; with an appendix of documents.

  • Durnford, James Caesar.
Date:
1856
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The correspondence relating to the Lancet Sanitary Commission : (which appeared lately in The Times) / examined by James Caesar Durnford, John A. Power and Raymond S. Daniell ; with an appendix of documents. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    22/64 (page 20)
    offence of adding so injurious a substance to gin. Prior to the publication of the Report on Gin in the Lancet, however, Dr. Hassall was led to suspect the correctness of the results furnished by Dr. Letheby ; he therefore analysed a portion of the same samples himself, found that they did not contain a trace of zinc, and called Dr. Letheby’s attention to the error, which was acknowledged by him. This, although one of the most striking of the errors committed, is by no means the only example which might be adduced. Not very long since some waters were forwarded to him to ascer- tain the degree of hardness. These were all returned wrong, and on Dr. Hassall’s pointing out the error to him, he con- fessed the mistake, and said that it had occurred through a fault of his laboratory assistant; thus showing that of the analyses actually entrusted to Dr. Letheby all were not per- formed by him. We feel that Dr. Hassall’s vindication would not be com- plete unless we noticed the use which Dr. Letheby has made of certain extracts from Dr. Ilassall’s private letters to him. Of the propriety of publishing. passages from a confidential correspondence between professional men without the con- sent of the writer (for which, in this instance, there did not exist even the miserable excuse of a previous quarrel), there can be, we should think, but one opinion. “ Quis enim unquam qui paulum modo bonorum consuetudinem nosset, literas ad se ab amico missas, offensione aliqua interposita, in medium protulit, palamque recitavit? Quid est aliud tollere e vita vitas societatem, quam tollere amicorum colloquia absentium ? Quam multa joca solent esse in epistolis, qu® prolata si sint, inepta videantur! quam multa seria, neque tamen ullo modo divulganda!’ (Cicero, in M. Antonium.) But what is the inference that Dr. Letheby would have us to deduce from the extracts from Dr. Hassall’s private letters, which he has not scrupled to publish ? Is it that Dr. Hassall is deficient in chemical knowledge? With equal justice might Dr. Hassall point to those errors which have been noticed above on the part of Dr. Letheby; and thence en- deavour to fix on that gentleman an imputation of incom- petency.