195 



synthetical process, and, removing the ligature from the bile-ducts, 

 observe whether those first phenomena recur which were remarked 

 under the natural condition, and found to cease upon the preven- 

 tion of the presence of bile. However impossible or even absurd 

 all this may seem, until it is fairly and fully accomplished, I shall 

 take the liberty of saying, that the offices of the bile, the results 

 of the function of the liver, have never been successfully investi- 

 gated. Let others be bold in professing knowledge: for my own 

 part, I find that the profession of ignorance is much more be- 

 coming, and am apt to believe that there would not be half so 

 many puppies in the world if men were as honest in confessing 

 their real deficiencies, as they are ingenious in gaining credit for 

 better qualifications than they possess. Let us, however, bestow 

 a few words upon the popular notions on this subject. 



11. There are those who pretend to know all about it. The 

 use of bile 7 why, say they, is it not the natural stimulus to the 

 intestines? does it not help to produce their peristaltic motions! 

 would the bowels act without the presence of bile? Such is the 

 explanation which some men, who pass for shrewd ones too, will 

 offer. Bile, then, say they, is the natural stimulus to the bowels. 

 I would ask what is meant by a natural stimulus? I presume that 

 as a stimulus is a something which produces an. effect, it is another 

 name for a cause, which is the ordinary term by which we express 

 those things upon operations of which changes or results depend. 

 But the word stimulus, it will be said, does not imply the cause of 

 the motions of the bowels, seeing that these motions may take 

 place without it; but it designates an adjunct to the other powers, 

 a something that gives energy to the other powers, tending to the 

 same end. Then the stimulus of bile, instead of being the cause, 

 is a cause of the motions of the bowels. Is there, I would ask, any 

 proof that the bile is either the cause or a cause of those motions 

 of the bowels by which the faeces are expelled? This is a matter 

 which may be argued at some length. It may be said by those 

 who assign the above office to bile, that diarrhoea always happens 

 when the intestines contain a preternatural quantity of bile. It may 

 be said, in reply, that it is not proved that the bowels contain, in the 

 cases alluded to, a preternatural quantity of bile ; for the bile which 

 is vomited in cholera may be no more than a misplaced portion of 

 the natural quantity, and that which is evacuated from the rectum 

 may also belong to the natural quantity of bile, which appears to 

 be increased by a mixture with a large and preternatural proportion 

 of the visceral secretions. Besides, granting in this disease the 

 quantity of bile to be increased, the action of vomiting and the 

 supposed quickened, or inverted peristaltic motions of the bowels, 

 as at other times they all take place when there is no reason to 

 suppose a preternatural quantity of bile, and, as in cholera, the 

 sickness, &c. often continues when bile ceases to be discharged, 

 so these actions may be concomitant only with an increased secre- 

 tiou of bile, or the unconnected particulars of a general affection. 



