380 Scientific Intelligence. 



the Edinburgh Medical and Surgicp.1 Journal for April.) — It is singular 

 that on so important a subject as the taste of arsenic, a point which 

 has been alluded to on so many trials, and which admits apparently of 

 such easy decision, any diflPerence of opinion should prevail among men 

 of science. In most elementary works on chemistry and legal medicine, 

 the taste of arsenic is reported to be acrid, and yet it appears from the facts 

 adduced by Dr Chvistison, that this poison may be deliberately tasted with- 

 out exciting any sensation of acridity. After quoting several authorities ta 

 support this statement, Dr Christison gives the result of direct trials made 

 by himself and several of his friends. " Dr Turner, lecturer on chemistry, 

 tasted two gi-ains, moving the pow^der over his tongue and palate for half a 

 minute, and perceived no taste. Mr Haidinger, well known as a mineralo- 

 gist, tried two grains in the same way, and perceived no taste. Dr Becker, 

 an intelligent pupil of this university, also tried it in my presence, and 

 perceived no taste. I have tried two grains often, — once for a whole mi- 

 nute, and towards the close I thought I perceived a faint sweetish taste, but 

 never any thing else. Dr Duncan Junior tried nearly double the quantity 

 for a minute and a-half, and like me thought he perceived a faint sweetish 

 taste towards the end, but nothing more. With regard to the taste of the 

 solution, Dr Turner perceived an obscure sensation of sweetness. Mr 

 Haidinger thought he perceived a slight astringency; and to myself the 

 taste was faintly sweet and acid : but none of us remarked any acridity." 



From this evidence it appears certain, that arsenic, as applied to the 

 tongue and palate, whether in substance or in solution, does not occasion an 

 acrid taste. These observations, it will be remarked, do not decide what the 

 taste would be, were the arsenic applied to the root of the tongue and fau- 

 ces, as in the act of deglutition. That a substance, however, should excite 

 an acrid taste when swallowed, and not produce that effect when deliber- 

 ately applied to the tongue and palate, is very unlikely ; and indeed Dr 

 Christison has cited one instance of arsenic having been actually swallow- 

 ed without any sense of acridity being perceived. It is probable, as Dr 

 Christison suggests, that those who have complained of an acrid taste from 

 arsenic, have confounded the primary impression with the inflammation 

 produced by that poison after a certain interval. We are acquainted with 

 no unequivocal instance of a person who complained of acridity, after swal- 

 lowing arsenic, within that short space of time usually required for the 

 distinct developement of taste. In the trial of Mary Blandy for the mur- 

 der of her father, the physician reports Mr Blandy to have complained, 

 that soon after taking a cup of gruel he felt an extraordinary grittiness in 

 his mouth, attended with a very painful burning and pricking in his ton- 

 gue, throat, stomach, and bowels. In another part of the examination the 

 symptoms are said to have occurred almost immediately after taking the 

 poisoned gruel ; but the actual interval was probably not carefully observ- 

 ed, since sufficient time had elapsed for the developement of inflammatory 

 action in the throat and stomach, before any burning pain was referred to 

 the tongue.— (Howell's State Trials, vol. xviii.) 



The second point which we shall notice in Dr Christison's valuable pa- 



3 



