EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
Ill 
more strange is, that, as shewn by the analysis of the two 
compositions, made by Dr. Hulme, of Exeter, for the defence, 
in neither were any, nor could there be any, new compounds 
formed by the addition to the arsenic of the other ingredients, 
consisting of sulphur, potash, and oil or fat; nay, that when 
the two compositions, in equal parts, were diluted or mingled 
with equal quantities of water, the one alleged to have been 
productive of such mischievous and fatal consequences still 
contained, in any given quantity, less arsenic than that which 
alleged experience had shewn to be comparatively innocuous 
in its application. With such facts before him, no medical 
man could bring himself to believe, that the two compo¬ 
sitions could have been used with equivalent precautions, and 
that in both cases the subjects were equally prepared, or in an 
equally fit condition to undergo the process of “ dipping” in 
such compositions, or that they were in situations and under 
management equally proper for such an operation. In a word, 
that all the circumstances of the two cases could be identical, as 
it was proved was the fact as regarded the essential properties 
of the two compositions. 
Turning out, however, as it did, that Froom’s composition 
came to destroy several sheep, and to materially injure many 
others, what was done as soon as it was found that such ill 
consequences had befallen its use? Was a veterinary surgeon 
—the man who is supposed and ought to know most about 
such matters—sent for ? No! Mr. Huggins “ called in a 
farrier .” And on the trial, a physician, Dr. Shapter, was sub¬ 
poenaed, who “ described the corrosive effects of arsenic and 
arsenite of potash on the skin, and on abraded surfaces, and 
calculated that, supposing the composition to be equally diffused 
or dissolved in the water, and that each fleece absorbed two 
quarts, the quantity of arsenic applied to each would be fifty 
grains, which he considered enough to produce the symptoms 
described.” He admitted the similarity of the two compositions; 
but thought that in the pernicious one the arsenic was “ more 
chemically combined , and therefore likely to act more power¬ 
fully.” Setting the chemical part of the investigation on one 
side, we should have imagined that a veterinary surgeon would 
have been the most fit and proper person to have called in to 
