REVIEWS. 
71 
chemical principle which represented its p}’-8gmic properties. This, if we 
mistake not, was combined with an acid — as though it were’a base — dissolved, 
and finally precipitated j nevertheless, the precipitate thus produced ex- 
hibited all the active poisonous qualities of the original pus, and when 
injected into the tissues of animals it gave rise to genuine pyaemia. How, 
according to the theory laid down by Dr. Morris, are we to explain these 
facts ? We answer, in nowise. The results of Dr. Richardson’s investiga- 
tion, show us that a purely chemical substance extracted from an organised 
structure is capable, when taken into the system, of starting the develop- 
ment of the original structure from which it was obtained. Unless, then. 
Dr. Morris considers that Dr. Richardson’s pus-salt contained his vital 
germs in chemical combination, we know not how to explain these facts upon 
his hypothesis. If this explanation be granted, then the whole problem 
becomes a physico-chemical one, and is removed from the category of so- 
called vital actions. 
W e have said sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of the author’s argu- 
ment. The hypothesis laid down by Dr. Morris may still be true, but we 
think our readers will admit that its author has certainly not proved his case. 
The theory before us is stated in too many words. Had the author been more 
concise in expression he would have done more to inculcate his opinions, and 
he would have avoided certain contradictions which his observations exhibit. 
That his own ideas have been imperfectly developed is evident by what it 
seems to us is a confusion of terms, in which we find him occasionally in- 
dulging. Indeed, in one instance, we have been at considerable pains to 
interpret his meaning, but, unfortunately, our efforts have been unavailing. 
Alluding to the contagion of smallpox in Sydenham’s days, he observes (p. 5), 
“Few escaped the disease, and these owed their immunity to the absence of 
predisposition, not to the absence of the virus.” We are somewhat shocked to 
find a writer who aims at so high a position in medical philosophy thus explain 
a very remarkable phenomenon by employing a term which does nothing more 
than gloss over ignorance. It is therefore pleasing to find that the author, 
at page 37, thus defines predisposition : “ When analysed, I think it 
amounts to saying that the enemy was within the body as well as with- 
out — that some of the specific germinal matter in question was circulating in 
the blood.” This is, so far, satisfactory j but how, in the name of reason, 
are we to reconcile the somewhat distinct meanings which Dr, Morris attaches 
to the word predisposition ? All through the work he aims at a show of 
sequence of argument, and adopts the somewhat clap-trap method of 
arranging his propositions in a fashion which may be taken by the uninitiated 
for syllogism ; but in every instance where he tries his mental faculties on 
the really complex problems of physiology, he wades cumbrously and help- 
lessly into the thickest mire of obscurity. This is evidenced in an especial 
manner by the strange notions which he seems to have formed on the 
subject of chemical forces ; for he is good enough to tell those who have 
paid some attention to the chemistry of growth, that there is no correlation 
of the chemical “ forces with growth.” It may be surmised that by growth 
he means the other forces associated with growth; but perhaps we do an 
injustice in oflering this conjecture. If we have thus noticed Dr. Morris’s 
work at some length, it is because of the importance we believe due to 
