on the Action of Poisons on the Animal System , siy 
it is reasonable to conclude that it may be so in some in« 
stances, if the animal survives the effects produced on the 
organs more immediately necessary to life. Mr. Henry 
Earle informed me of an instance, in which this appeared 
to be the case. A woman in St. Bartholomew's hospital, who 
had taken arsenic, recovered of the immediate symptoms, but 
died at the end of four or five days. On examination after 
death, extensive ulcerations were found of the mucous mem- 
brane of the stomach and intestines, which we can hardly 
doubt to have been the cause of death. 
It is an important matter of inquiry, as connected with judi- 
cial medicine, how far may the examination of the body, after 
death, enable us to decide, whether an animal has died of the 
effects of arsenic? On this subject, however, I have only a 
few remarks to make. 
The inflammation from arsenic, occupying in general the 
whole of the stomach and intestine, is more extensive than that 
from any other poison with which I am acquainted. It does 
not affect the pharynx or oesophagus, and this circumstance 
distinguishes it from the inflammation which is occasioned 
by the actual contact of irritating applications. 
But little in general is to be learnt from the examination of 
the contents of the stomach after death. When arsenic has 
been taken in substance, small particles of it are frequently 
found entangled in the mucus, or in the extravasated blood ; 
but where this was not the case, I have never known, in an 
animal that was capable of vomiting, that arsenic could be 
detected in the contents of the stomach after death, though 
examined by the most accurate chemical tests. As some sub- 
stances when taken internally are separated from the blood 
MDeccxir. F f 
