IN INDIAN GAOLS. 929 



Leaving now the subject of typhus and its existence or non- 

 existence in India, and comin'g to the question of typhoid fever, 

 I must express my surprise at Dr. Buchanan's having said (p. io6) 

 that 'nothing about enteric fever can be brought into evidence 

 from India ' ; for Dr. Murchison quotes a cloud of authorities 

 (p. 407 ojp, cit.) in support of his statement that 'in India it is 

 now known to be far from uncommon'; and I suppose that a 

 disease not uncommon outside may be taken as likely to be not 

 uncommon inside the walls of gaols. I will quote one authority 

 whom Dr. Murchison has not quoted — namely, Dr. James An- 

 nesley, the author of a work on the ' Causes, Nature, and Treat- 

 ment of the more prevalent Diseases of India and of Warm 

 Climates generally,' a first edition of which appeared with plates, 

 in quarto, in i8:j8, and a second without plates, in octavo, in 

 1 841. At page 457 of the first edition, and page 547 of the second, 

 under the head ' On Organic Changes in Fevers,' I find the follow- 

 ing words, for the latter part of which plate xxii. of the fi.rst 

 edition furnishes a good illustration : — 



* Marks of disease of the large and small intestines are generally confined to their 

 internal tunics. The duodenum, jejunum, and ileum, especially the duodenum and 

 termination of the ileum, very frequently are diseased in their mucous surface, which 

 is inflamed in patches, sometimes covered with a muco-purulent secretion and studded 

 with small ulcerations, particularly the termination of the ileum. Occasionally the 

 mucous surface is of a brick -red or purplish shade of colour, apparently ecchymosed, 

 and covered with a bloody sanies, and readily detached from the subjacent texture. 

 In several cases the ulcerations — which sometimes are large and far apart, at other 

 times small and agglomerated, especially the former — have nearly penetrated the 

 tunics of the intestines, and, in a very few cases, I have observed this occurrence 

 actually to have supervened, the contents of the bowels being partly effused into the 

 peritoneal cavity, and having produced peritonitis.' 



I come now to evidence which, as being of more recent publica- 

 tion than my communications in * The Lancet' of March, 1869, 

 was not available when I wrote, but which shows beyond all doubt 

 that enteric or typhoid fever is one at least of the gaol-fevers of 

 India. In Dr. De Eenzy's last Report on the Sanitary Admini- 

 stration of the Punjab ^ (for a recently received copy of which I am 

 indebted, as I imagine, to his kindness), I find, at page 127, the 

 following statement relative to one of the gaols brought forward in 

 evidence by me, in ' The Lancet,' in March, 1869 : — 



1 For 1869. Published at the Lawrence Press, Lahore, 1870. 

 30 



