Drawing a Thimble—Stealing a Watch 
_ from the Side or Fob. 
Pikeing acrofs the Herring Pond—Going 
to Botany Bay. 
The Swag is fafely planted with the Fence 
—The Property is taken to the Re= 
ceiver’s Houfe. 
Ge has Split or turned Snitch againft all 
his Palls—He has turned evidence’ 
againft all his Companions. 
Starring the Glaxe—Cutting Shop-win- 
dows. . 
ee 
«* Non ex fulgore fumum, fed ex. 
Fumo dare lucem.’’ 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
ERMIT me, through the channel of 
your very valuable mifcellany, to 
favour your numerous readers with a brief 
fketch of the controverfy refpe€ting the 
antiveneteal property of Nitrous Acid, 
and other analogous fubftances, which 
have within thefe few years been introduced 
in public as well as private practice ; and 
upon the fuccefs of which, we might fay 
with Terence, ** Quot homines tot fen- 
tenting)" 
It is not my intention to enter very mi- 
nutely into the fubject of this debate; but 
the intereft of the public is toodeeply con- 
cerned to allow of its being lightly paffed 
ever; the decifion of this queftion is of 
the utmoft importance, and cannot -be 
f{crutinifed with more attention than it de- 
ferves; it is alone from a fenfe of profef- 
fional duty, I venture to {tate what at pre- 
fent appears to me to be the refult of all 
the ablervations which have been made by 
thofe practitioners who have fo laudably 
and zealoufly purfued the enquiry. 
It is now more than five years ago, that 
Mr. William Scott, of Bombay, propofed 
to cure the Lues Venerea, by fubftituting 
the acid of nitre ixffeadof mercury. The 
principles upon which he introduced this 
remedy, and the unqualified terms in which 
1€ recommended its ufe, inclined various 
medical practitioners in Europe and Ame- 
rica to make an experimental enquiry into 
ats merits. Several gentlemen of rank 
and reputation in their profeffion, have 
taken a more than ordinary degree of pains 
to examine this fubjeét: among whom I 
particularly name Dr. Rollo, of Wool- 
wich; Dr. Beddoes, of Clifton; and 
“Mr. Blair of London. Although a cloud 
of witneffes have teftified the good effects 
‘of the oxygenated medicines in fome {tates 
of the. Lues Venerea, it is difputed by men 
of unimpeached cHaracter, fkill, and pro- 
bity, whether they may be juflifiably de: 
‘ 
Controverfy on the Nitrous Acid by Mr. Brown. 
23 
pended on alone, efpecially in the more 
advanced ftages of this infidious complaint, 
The following is, I believe, a juft account 
of the controverly, as it has been impar- 
tially reprefented by Mr. Blair. Thi» 
gentleman, with much ability and candoury 
has brought into a luminous point of view, 
all the exifting faéts, both for and againit 
the new mode of treatment.. (See the firft 
of his Effays on the Venereal Dileafe}. 
Upon the whole he ftates, that the’genera< 
lity of the cures adduced in favour of the 
_ acids, &c. are not fuch as an impartial 
obferver would felect as the mrof? uxequivo-~ 
cal: It is therefore to be doubted, ha 
thinks, whether the cures ought to be ad< 
mitted as finally conclufive. 
Again, a great number of perfons treated 
by Dr. Girdleftone of Yarmouth, Mr. Ben- 
jamin Bell of-Edinburgh, and other emi- 
nent practitioners (not to mention his own 
patients at the Lock- Hofpital and Finfbury 
| Difpenfary), experienced ax actual increale. 
of the venereal fymptoms, during the care- 
ful exhibition of thefe remedies: from 
hence he infers, with much plaufibility on 
his fide, that the fuccefsful trials alledged 4 
by Dr. Rollo and Dr. Beddoes, are pro~ _ 
bably. fallacious. Br. Rollo has given 
the refult of more than 150 cafes and ex- 
periments, conducted by the Surgeons of 
the Royal Artillery Hofpital; and is de- 
cidedly of opinion, that the new remedies 
are more fafe and certaix than mercury, va 
every ftage of this difeafe. Dr. Beddoesy 
with his ufual induftry, has likewife col- 
lected a large body of evidence from diffe- 
rent parts of the kingdom, which he con- 
ceives will so a great way toward eftablifh- 
ing the efficacy of thefe remedies (parti- 
cularly the acid of nitre), both in primary. 
and fecondary fymptoms of fyphilis; to 
this collection I have contributed my mite._ 
This ingenious phyfician has alfo an- 
nounced, that he is on the eve of publith- 
ing another collection of cafes, fill better 
calculated to prove his former fuggeftions, 
beyond all reafonable controverfy. 
midft ‘all the uncertainty in which 
the fubject is mvolved, I am happy to 
learn (by a late advertufement) that Mr. 
Biair ftill perfeveres in his defign of ac- 
cumulating additional evidence, from pri- 
vate as well as publrc. fources; and E 
cannot doubt but the fubject will be fully 
elucidated by his unremitting enquiries. 
Before I conclude, allow me to make a 
few obfervations in.anfwer to your core 
refpondent N. at Brittol, of lait month, 
on the fubject of the propriety of admi- 
niftering vomits in cafes of fulpended ant- 
gration, If, with all his chemical know- 
ledge 
