5 24 Arsenical Poisoning by Wall-Papers [September, 
secret poisoning by arsenic. He appeared as a^ witness 
before the Select Committee of the House of Lords 
1857, at the time the “ Sale of Poisons Bill was under 
dicussion. Dr. Taylor desired to get a clause insei ted 
this Bill which should regulate the use of arsenic by manu lac- 
turers, but it was urged on their part that it would hamper 
and injure trade. But although he failed to accomplish 
his object, he succeeded in arousing the attention ol the 
medical profession to the question. Up to this time even 
medical men were not fully aware of the danger to health. 
From this moment very many cases of chronic poisoning y 
wall-papers were discovered and made known,— illnesses o 
an unaccountable and perplexing nature were at once under- 
stood. Curiously enough, among the greatest suffeiers fiom 
arsenical papers were several well-known medical men, 
including Dn Hinds and Dr. Halley. These gentlemen, 
happening to read Prof. Taylor’s evidence, came to the con- 
clusion that their own distressing symptoms weie the lesult 
of chronic slow-poisoning by arsenic. In a short time then 
surmises were corroborated by the great change i ou b i 
about in their symptoms by simply stripping off the brig 1 
green papers hanging on the walls of their consulting-rooms. 
About the same time the wife of a London surgeon die 
after much suffering from symptoms which Prof. Stenhouse 
after analysing the wall-paper of her room, pronounced 
“ highly arsenical.” Dr. Lauder Brunton was inclined to 
think the evils said to arise from arsenical poisoning much 
exaggerated. Soon after, and from bitter personal expe- 
rience (his study having been papered with arsenical papei), 
he changed his opinion. . . , , , .. 
In 1870 a Committee of Inquiry was appointed by the 
Medical Society of London, of which I was Chairman. In 
the course of a few weeks no less than fifty-four reports 0 
cases reached me of arsenical poisoning by wall-papers, 
twenty-four of these occurring in the persons or families ol 
the medical men themselves. This, I think, is strong evi- 
dence of the difficulties attending the diagnosis or recognition 
of this form of illness, poisoning, and tends also to show 
that the better opportunities for observation afforded to a 
medical man in his own house may lead to the detection of 
mischief, which in the person of a patient would escape 
attention, mar his diagnosis, and mislead him as to its 
proper treatment. This is so because the gastrointestinal 
irritation that attends the internal reception ol the poison 
is mostly absent. It has been discovered, too, that different 
individuals exhibit very different degrees of suceptibihty, so 
