- Email: [email protected]
"TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AT PRETORIA."
POISON IN BEER.
1675
state of "ignorance," minus the " imonly refer to these utterances of Sir Henry Primrose because they are typical of the attitude which has been habitually adopted by the department over which he presides on this important question. ‘ Audi alteram partem." Every brewer knows perfectly well that the employment in the preparation of which of invert sugar, glucose, &c., POISON IN BEER. dangerous chemicals are used is not necessary to the successful manufacture of beer. They enable beer to be matured To the Editors of THE LANCET. more quickly and therefore larger quantities can be turned SIRs,-Will you permit me to reply through your columns out with the same capital, plant, and storage room, and to the numerous requests which have reached me from all there is this further advantage, that by keeping down the quarters for some indication of the views of myself and demand for barley its price is correspondingly depressed friends interested in the Pure Beer Movement upon the and brewers are able to purchase such quantities as they lamentable epidemic of poisoning in Manchester and other are ohliged to use at a cheaper rate. It is in the light of towns. Without anticipating the result of the scientific these facts that Mr. Read in his report asks that the cominvestigations now in progress there would appear to be little plaints about British barley and the statement as to the doubt that the epidemic is a striking illustration of the necessity of getting "sun into the mash tun" should be public danger to which we have for many years directed regarded. Abroad the use of substitutes has in some States attention, arising out of the liberty permitted to brewers been for centuries absolutely forbidden ; in Bavaria, it is a to use any materials they choose in the brewing of beer. criminal offence, and not only the public, but the brewers This liberty is enjoyed under what is popularly known as themselves, are most active in seeing that the law is the "free mash tun "-a concession granted by Mr. Glad- strictly enforced. It is difficult to see why that which is stone when he repealed the malt tax in 1880. So largely did found not only desirable, but practicable, there should be the brewers avail themselves of this freedom in the choice regarded as impossible here. At any rate, the wholesale of ingredients that within a few years a movement poisoning which has unfortunately occurred only goes to was inaugurated with the object of securing a definition of prove the necessity for still greater exertions in prosecuting "beer," and for many years subsequent to 1885 a Bill was the movement for better securing the purity of beer, and annually introduced in Parliament for the purpose of obtain- certainly justifies the opinion of Mr. Read, based upon a ing such definition. In 1896 the Bill, which, with the careful consideration of all the evidence placed before the assistance of members on both sides of the House, had been Beer Materials Committee, that legislation or other proamended and amplified, reached the second reading stage ; vision is necessary to prevent the use of deleterious subbut on the Chancellor of the Exchequer offering a Depart- stances in brewing. mental Committee to inquire into the matter the Bill was We propose to bring the matter again before Parliament withdrawn. The sittings of this committee extended over at the first opportunity, feeling as we do that the time has two years, the outcome being a majority report against any surely come when the same protection as is afforded to alteration of the existing law, and a minority report strongly the purchaser of other articles of diet, such as butter, milk, insisting upon the necessity of safeguarding the interests of coffee, &c., should be extended to the immense number of the public. our fellow-countrymen whose regular and favourite beverage We are of opinion that recent events are a complete is beer. I am, Sirs, yours faithfully, CUTHBERT QUILTER. justification of the minority report, and that had the House of Commons, Dec. 4th, 1900. Government acted upon its recommendations the present epidemic might never have occurred. It was pointed out that the fact of brewers being free to make beer of any To the Editors of THE LANCET. materials they pleased so long as the revenue did not suffer will be found that cases of arsenical poisoning SIRS,-It rendered necessary much more scrupulous regulations for the are not confined to the Manchester district but are very wideprotection of the public against the use of deleterious spread. The medical profession in Ilkley-in-Wharfedale ingredients than at present exist. have been exercised during the last four months at Although there is no article of food consumed on anything the unusualgreatly number of severe cases of peripheral neuritis and like the scale of beer in the manufacture of which the
Correspondence.
indiscriminate
of any chemical or other material is permitted by law, the system of examination followed by the Excise officers in the breweries and by the Inland Revenue officials at Somerset House is designed for the protection of the revenue and not the detection of deleterious ingredients, so that the presence of any dangerous impurity is never likely, under existing circumstances, to be discovered until after the mischief has been done. Notwithstanding that the Treasury may be empowered" to prohibit the use of anything noxious or detrimental, the evidence taken by the committee went to show that this power has never been exercised save in the case of saccharin, a preparation believed to be harmless, but which was regarded as "detrimental" to the revenue. Further, the fact remains that the present epidemic has occurred in spite of official precautions, whatever they may be. And so long as the present system is allowed to continue so long will the door remain open to the use of poisonous or deleterious ingredients. It was also demonstrated to the committee by public analysts of high standing that they were powerless in the matter, as the Provisions of the Food and Drugs Act were inoperative as regards beer. Surely the time has now come when a period should be put to this subordination of public health to the interests of the revenue. Sir Henry Primrose, the chairman of the Board of Inlanc Revenue, was congratulating the Country Brewers’ Society the other day on the excellent relations which subsistec between his department and the great brewing interest, anc he thought the attacks on the "free mash tun"might bE regarded as at an end. As he is further reported to ham said that he entered upon the Beer MaterialsInquire with the " blank impartiality which is born of blanK ignorance," one is tempted to imagine, having regard to the strange way in which the conclusions of himself and the majority of the committee have been falsified by recen events, that he must have emerged from the investigation in use
much the
same
partiality."
I
acute skin affections that have come under their notice, for the most part occurring in beer-drinkers. The beer has been suspected for some months past as being the cause. But as no chemicals or preservatives were used in the local brewery that largely supplies the district the situation was perplexing. At one time I thought formalin might be the cause as in some breweries it is used to cleanse vats, bottles, casks, and also as a preservative in cheap beers. The brewery authorities were keenly active in endeavouring to fathom the mystery and ordered an analysis a month since, but unfortunately the ought to be in beer. Arsenic has analyst only looked for what " I invert" sugar used in the brewing now been found in the and also in the beer. There are also an unusual number of cases of peripheral neuritis under treatment, of infiuenzal and rheumatic origin, occurring in non-beer-drinkers. Some of these are possibly of mixed origin. Aerated waters are not above suspicion where sulphuric acid is used to produce the gas. I am, Sirs, yours faithfully, A. H. H. BAMPTON. BAMPTON. likley-in-Wharfedale, Nov. 30th, 1900.
"TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AT PRETORIA." To the Editors of THE LANCET. SIRS,-As a reply to your remarks in your issue of Sept. 22nd, 1900, it seems to me that I cannot do better than enclose a copy of a letter I have sent to the Field Marshal Lord Roberts-an answer to which I have not yet I saw the report for the first time quite received. accidentally and my astonishment can be imagined when it is known I had no idea there was, anything of the sort. I do not think the method of a court of inquiry is understood. There was no clerk to make a record of the proceedings, the evidence was not on oath, there was no confrontation I was ignorant that of witnesses or cross-examination.
1676
"TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AT PRETORIA."
there was any allegation against me, did not know of the officers and some men came under the clause. Their release was and the time of their departure fixed, but at the last moment witnesses or who they were, had no opportunity of cross- ordered an order came from the Government countermanding the order of examining or in any way meeting the evidence which was release because the Commissioner of Police did not think the Convennot disclosed to me. I have had, therefore, no opportunity tion applied. I urgetl the State Attorney to advise the State Secretarv however, were not of defending myself. It is remarkable that the very on the matter, which I believe he did. The mea, released, though the officers were subsequently in some ill-defined way. obvious desire of some of the witnesses to exculpate themThat I did urge, and was anxious to give, assistance to the prisoners, selves or gain 74itdos at my expense did not create some the best assistance in my power, is clearly shown from what took place with regard to the officers. When an officer became ill in his quarters suspicion in the mind of the court. I was only able to give medicines, suitable diet, alteration of his sleepI am, Sirs, yours faithfully, ing quarters, and other things equally necessary I was not allowed to PRIOH VEALE. H. PRIOR interfere with; but when I could get the necessary permission and remove the sick to the Bourkc Hospital (of which I was in charge for Hout Bay, Cape Division, Cape Colony, Nov. 12th, 1900. the Red Cross Society) there was nothing procurable and suitable that such sick did not receive. This shows that when I was able to act free Hout Bay, Cape Division, November, 1900. from the Prisoners’ Committee I was successful in securing proper To the Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar and Waterford, treatment of the sick. I would here remark incidentally that the K.P., G.C.B., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., V.C., Commander-in-Chief Government or its subordinates gave no help whatever to the sick and of the British Forces in South Africa. wounded officers in Pretoria and that everything they received was MY LORD,-I am persuaded that your lordship would regret any act obtained by me in the first instance from the Red Cross Society and of injustice which upon mistaken information you might possibly later from private sources. commit, and I approach you with a confident hope that you will cause I venture to hope that if your lordship will kindly give attention to further and more complete inquirv to be made and will not hesitate the above true representations as to my position and what I did, you if and when satisfied that you have drawn in error a conclusion most will conciude that not having been appointed by the Government to injurious to myself to remove from my good name the shadow of your look after the prisoners not only was I not officially responsible for a In letter from to adverse reflection. the Secreyour lordship heavy what was left undone, but further as an ordinary medical practitioner tary of State for War, covering the report of the proceedings of a I did not ignore any lack of proper treatment brought to my Court of Enquiry held with regard to the treatment of British prisoners notice, but did what I could to improve the circumstances of war in Pretoria, the following passage occurs :-" On the other hand and alleviate the sufferings of men as well as officers. Upon it would be difficult to condemn too strongly the conduct of Dr. H. P. representations which have been erroneously made your lordVeale, M.B. (Cambridge), whose heartlessness in ignoring the dis- ship, it appears, has judged me adversely as having ignoredremongraceful treatment of the sick prisoners and the remonstrances strances addressed to me by other medical officers. This can only addressed to him by the medical officers in immediate charge of them apply to one medical officer-viz., Dr. Haylett. This gentleman’s calls for the severest reprobation." appointment was specially urged by me because I thought that with From the passage above quoted, read with the letter from Colonel his knowledge of the :Dutch language and acquaintance with the I infer me to must that have Hunt, your lordship supposes officials he might perhaps achieve much improvement at Waterval, occupied some official or recognised position in which I could have when, prior to his appointment of the 16th January, 1900, which made remedied the condition of affairs regarding prisoners of war. The him responsible, he wrote to me on the condition of affairs at Waterval statement to this effect made by Colonel Hunt in his report naturally on the 27th December, 1899, this matter was being dealt with by the and probably weighed greatly with you. I beg, therefore, plainly to appointment of the inspecting commission previously mentioned in point out to your lordship that though a member I never was head of this letter. I had his letter translated into the official language and the Red Cross Society nor at any time occupied any official position forwarded it the same day with a covering letter to the Prisoners’ giving me any authority or control with regard to the prisoners of war. Committee (copies handed to Court of Enquiry). Then Dr. Haylett Such services as I rendered in connexion with the prisoners of war at wrote again re-stating the condition of affairs and also stating that he the Racecourse and elsewhere were rendered gratuitously on humane consideration only. I may mention incidentally that the Transvaal Red Cross Society depending on public voluntary subscription none of its members or servants to my knowledge received any remuneration. The administration of matters affecting prisoners of war was placed by the State as a distinct department under a specially appointed committee to which the charge of the sick and wounded was allotted. This appears from the separate resolution of the Executive Council appointing the "Medical Commission" and conferring on it jurisdiction over all medical matters and men in the State except the prisoner8 of war. I was associated with the Medical Commission, but was at no time engaged in the distinct department mentioned or by the Prisoners’ Committee, and it may be eluestioned whether, according to the Executive Council resolution, I could have been so engaged. Be that as it may, I had no function or appointment in that connexion. But it may be felt that though I had no official position to redress evils of administration, yet as a graduate of a great British University something more might be expected of me than of other medical practitioners. On this head I beg to point out that I used such opportunities as I had not merely for ameliorating the condition of things of Waterval, but with a view to preventing that spot being used as it was. I would point out that I dreaded what might happen there and most cheerfully seized the opportunity given me of inspecting Waterval on the 27th
December, 1899. On the 28th December, 1899, sent a report totally condemning Waterval as a site for a camp. I had the water analysed and I forwarded to the Prisoners’ Committee the report condemning it as unfit for use. In order that they should not be overlooked or forgotten I repeated these reports on the 12th January, 1900, to emphasise the danger the Prisoners’ Committee was running. Copies of these letters were given by me to the Court of Enquiry. To prevent mischief to health at Waterval I on the same date further pressed by letter upon the Prisoners’ Committee that the sick should be immediately removed to the Racecourse, feeling certain that this step would reduce the risks entailed by the distance of Waterval from Pretoria (copies given to the Court of Enquiry). In addition to these written efforts, and quite beyond any official function entrusted to me, I urged verbally on officials highly placed under the Government and on members ofthe Prisoners’ Committee the above or other means for preventing or ameliorating the unsatisfactory state of affairs. I was more than once told that the Prisoners’ Committee did bring the matter before the Executive Council who, however, refused to alter matters. On the 16th January, 1900, I urged (copy handed to Court of Enquiry) the Prisoners’ Committee to appoint Dr. Haylett as resident "responsible" medical officer of the committee at Waterval, in the hope that if the committee went so far it would also enable the officer to do his work under proper conditions. His 1irst appointment to Waterval, dated 27th December, 1899. did not speak of responsibility and my suggestion was to make Dr. Haylett, the otlicer at Waterval, responsible for the sick and wounded to th(’ committee who should support him. Dr. Haylett, in full knowledge of the condition of affairs, accepted the 16th January, 1900, appointment, but I cannot say to what extent also h used his position to inttucuce the members of the Prisoners’ Committee and to press on steps desirable. He may have a done so ineffectually. What I wish to emphasise is that he was in position independent of myself. When holding the temporary position of commissariat officer to the "Medical Commission " again triusl to help the prisoners and wrote to the Prisoners Committee (24th Feb,1900, copy given to Court of Enquiry) uring it to arrange for placing the sick and wounded prisoners under the Medical Commission," so that burghers and prisoners could be treated alike, and the reply I got was that the Prisoners’ Committee was satisliel with things as they were. I also urged through the State Attorney, who was a member of the " Medical Commission,"that those prisoners who came under the release clause of the Geneva Convention should be released. I worked this until Dr. Bierens ole Ifaau and myself were appointed a board to report on the physical condition of certain prisoners. We reported that three
had interviewed the Prisoners’ Committee. I told him that I was not the proper person to write to and advised him to continue to address the Prisoners’ Committee and the Executive Council, but said that if he would write his letters in Dutch (the official language) I would forward and support them. He had, in fact, caused me unnecessary trouble in getting his previous letter forwarded as I had to get someone to translate it-not being able to do so myself and I had no secretary, as has been stated. The other notes I received from him being requests for medicines were at once handed to local chemists for execution and he received these consignments without delay. I had, indeed, also informed him that it was, strictly speaking, the duty of the Prisoners’ Committee to supply him with medicines, but I was willing to see to these supplies and did so, as he held, not without reason, that it was vain to expect the requisite prompt attention from the Prisoners’ Committee. It is not easy to understand how Dr. Haylett could seemingly have believed that I was the chief medical officer, and it is noteworthy that when he approached the Prisoners’ Committee on the 7th January, 1900, he does not appear to have made complaint as to his unanswered letters. In this connexion I may refer incidentally to his letter dated the 7th January, 1900, which was handed to the Court of Enquiry. His action throughout scarcely supports his assumed attitude as my subordinate. Dr. Haylett did not, as must be inferred from the statement recorded, tender his resignation by way of protest against his unsatisfactory position, but it will be found that he resigned rather because the Pietersburg Railway Company would otherwise be unable to continue his appointment as their medical officer. In fairness to myself I must call your lordship’s sttention to the fact that it was not possible for me at the Court of Enquiry to meet allegations against me which were not disclosed or known to me, and when at a later date the apprehension that I was regarded unfavourably caused me to write to your lordship the interview which I had with Colonel Cowan removed it. At this distance in Cape Town I am somewhat handicapped in presenting mv exoneration, as, of course, I have not with me all the materials which would be available at Pretoria. There is a special point of fact in Colonel Hunt’s report which may, perhaps, have contributed to place blame which cannot justly attach to me. I refer to his remarks with regard to the sick in the gaol and their non-removal. No other medical man being mentioned by name it may be supposed that I am referred to, whereas the gaol was and is under the district surgeon. Colonel Hunt in the same letter attributes to me unworthy motives for action or inaction for which he believes me responsible or culpable and yet cannot have formed his conclusions from any personal observations nor can he have been aware of the fact that my position and practice were entirely independent of remuneration or reward from the Government of the State. It may be that your lordship will, amidst much more important work, find time and occasion to investigate my appeal and ascertain the facts which I have here loosely strung together, and I most earnestly trust that such reconsideration of my case may remove the stigma under which your censure leaves me before the world.
"THE
QUESTION OF THE COMMUNION CUP." To the Editors of THE LANCET.
SIRS,-Theologians and students of ritual will, I think, welcome the discussion in THE LANCET of the question of possible infection conveyed by the touch of the communion cup. Obviously there are two separate questions-one of medical fact, the other of ritual observance. The question
1675
state of "ignorance," minus the " imonly refer to these utterances of Sir Henry Primrose because they are typical of the attitude which has been habitually adopted by the department over which he presides on this important question. ‘ Audi alteram partem." Every brewer knows perfectly well that the employment in the preparation of which of invert sugar, glucose, &c., POISON IN BEER. dangerous chemicals are used is not necessary to the successful manufacture of beer. They enable beer to be matured To the Editors of THE LANCET. more quickly and therefore larger quantities can be turned SIRs,-Will you permit me to reply through your columns out with the same capital, plant, and storage room, and to the numerous requests which have reached me from all there is this further advantage, that by keeping down the quarters for some indication of the views of myself and demand for barley its price is correspondingly depressed friends interested in the Pure Beer Movement upon the and brewers are able to purchase such quantities as they lamentable epidemic of poisoning in Manchester and other are ohliged to use at a cheaper rate. It is in the light of towns. Without anticipating the result of the scientific these facts that Mr. Read in his report asks that the cominvestigations now in progress there would appear to be little plaints about British barley and the statement as to the doubt that the epidemic is a striking illustration of the necessity of getting "sun into the mash tun" should be public danger to which we have for many years directed regarded. Abroad the use of substitutes has in some States attention, arising out of the liberty permitted to brewers been for centuries absolutely forbidden ; in Bavaria, it is a to use any materials they choose in the brewing of beer. criminal offence, and not only the public, but the brewers This liberty is enjoyed under what is popularly known as themselves, are most active in seeing that the law is the "free mash tun "-a concession granted by Mr. Glad- strictly enforced. It is difficult to see why that which is stone when he repealed the malt tax in 1880. So largely did found not only desirable, but practicable, there should be the brewers avail themselves of this freedom in the choice regarded as impossible here. At any rate, the wholesale of ingredients that within a few years a movement poisoning which has unfortunately occurred only goes to was inaugurated with the object of securing a definition of prove the necessity for still greater exertions in prosecuting "beer," and for many years subsequent to 1885 a Bill was the movement for better securing the purity of beer, and annually introduced in Parliament for the purpose of obtain- certainly justifies the opinion of Mr. Read, based upon a ing such definition. In 1896 the Bill, which, with the careful consideration of all the evidence placed before the assistance of members on both sides of the House, had been Beer Materials Committee, that legislation or other proamended and amplified, reached the second reading stage ; vision is necessary to prevent the use of deleterious subbut on the Chancellor of the Exchequer offering a Depart- stances in brewing. mental Committee to inquire into the matter the Bill was We propose to bring the matter again before Parliament withdrawn. The sittings of this committee extended over at the first opportunity, feeling as we do that the time has two years, the outcome being a majority report against any surely come when the same protection as is afforded to alteration of the existing law, and a minority report strongly the purchaser of other articles of diet, such as butter, milk, insisting upon the necessity of safeguarding the interests of coffee, &c., should be extended to the immense number of the public. our fellow-countrymen whose regular and favourite beverage We are of opinion that recent events are a complete is beer. I am, Sirs, yours faithfully, CUTHBERT QUILTER. justification of the minority report, and that had the House of Commons, Dec. 4th, 1900. Government acted upon its recommendations the present epidemic might never have occurred. It was pointed out that the fact of brewers being free to make beer of any To the Editors of THE LANCET. materials they pleased so long as the revenue did not suffer will be found that cases of arsenical poisoning SIRS,-It rendered necessary much more scrupulous regulations for the are not confined to the Manchester district but are very wideprotection of the public against the use of deleterious spread. The medical profession in Ilkley-in-Wharfedale ingredients than at present exist. have been exercised during the last four months at Although there is no article of food consumed on anything the unusualgreatly number of severe cases of peripheral neuritis and like the scale of beer in the manufacture of which the
Correspondence.
indiscriminate
of any chemical or other material is permitted by law, the system of examination followed by the Excise officers in the breweries and by the Inland Revenue officials at Somerset House is designed for the protection of the revenue and not the detection of deleterious ingredients, so that the presence of any dangerous impurity is never likely, under existing circumstances, to be discovered until after the mischief has been done. Notwithstanding that the Treasury may be empowered" to prohibit the use of anything noxious or detrimental, the evidence taken by the committee went to show that this power has never been exercised save in the case of saccharin, a preparation believed to be harmless, but which was regarded as "detrimental" to the revenue. Further, the fact remains that the present epidemic has occurred in spite of official precautions, whatever they may be. And so long as the present system is allowed to continue so long will the door remain open to the use of poisonous or deleterious ingredients. It was also demonstrated to the committee by public analysts of high standing that they were powerless in the matter, as the Provisions of the Food and Drugs Act were inoperative as regards beer. Surely the time has now come when a period should be put to this subordination of public health to the interests of the revenue. Sir Henry Primrose, the chairman of the Board of Inlanc Revenue, was congratulating the Country Brewers’ Society the other day on the excellent relations which subsistec between his department and the great brewing interest, anc he thought the attacks on the "free mash tun"might bE regarded as at an end. As he is further reported to ham said that he entered upon the Beer MaterialsInquire with the " blank impartiality which is born of blanK ignorance," one is tempted to imagine, having regard to the strange way in which the conclusions of himself and the majority of the committee have been falsified by recen events, that he must have emerged from the investigation in use
much the
same
partiality."
I
acute skin affections that have come under their notice, for the most part occurring in beer-drinkers. The beer has been suspected for some months past as being the cause. But as no chemicals or preservatives were used in the local brewery that largely supplies the district the situation was perplexing. At one time I thought formalin might be the cause as in some breweries it is used to cleanse vats, bottles, casks, and also as a preservative in cheap beers. The brewery authorities were keenly active in endeavouring to fathom the mystery and ordered an analysis a month since, but unfortunately the ought to be in beer. Arsenic has analyst only looked for what " I invert" sugar used in the brewing now been found in the and also in the beer. There are also an unusual number of cases of peripheral neuritis under treatment, of infiuenzal and rheumatic origin, occurring in non-beer-drinkers. Some of these are possibly of mixed origin. Aerated waters are not above suspicion where sulphuric acid is used to produce the gas. I am, Sirs, yours faithfully, A. H. H. BAMPTON. BAMPTON. likley-in-Wharfedale, Nov. 30th, 1900.
"TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AT PRETORIA." To the Editors of THE LANCET. SIRS,-As a reply to your remarks in your issue of Sept. 22nd, 1900, it seems to me that I cannot do better than enclose a copy of a letter I have sent to the Field Marshal Lord Roberts-an answer to which I have not yet I saw the report for the first time quite received. accidentally and my astonishment can be imagined when it is known I had no idea there was, anything of the sort. I do not think the method of a court of inquiry is understood. There was no clerk to make a record of the proceedings, the evidence was not on oath, there was no confrontation I was ignorant that of witnesses or cross-examination.
1676
"TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AT PRETORIA."
there was any allegation against me, did not know of the officers and some men came under the clause. Their release was and the time of their departure fixed, but at the last moment witnesses or who they were, had no opportunity of cross- ordered an order came from the Government countermanding the order of examining or in any way meeting the evidence which was release because the Commissioner of Police did not think the Convennot disclosed to me. I have had, therefore, no opportunity tion applied. I urgetl the State Attorney to advise the State Secretarv however, were not of defending myself. It is remarkable that the very on the matter, which I believe he did. The mea, released, though the officers were subsequently in some ill-defined way. obvious desire of some of the witnesses to exculpate themThat I did urge, and was anxious to give, assistance to the prisoners, selves or gain 74itdos at my expense did not create some the best assistance in my power, is clearly shown from what took place with regard to the officers. When an officer became ill in his quarters suspicion in the mind of the court. I was only able to give medicines, suitable diet, alteration of his sleepI am, Sirs, yours faithfully, ing quarters, and other things equally necessary I was not allowed to PRIOH VEALE. H. PRIOR interfere with; but when I could get the necessary permission and remove the sick to the Bourkc Hospital (of which I was in charge for Hout Bay, Cape Division, Cape Colony, Nov. 12th, 1900. the Red Cross Society) there was nothing procurable and suitable that such sick did not receive. This shows that when I was able to act free Hout Bay, Cape Division, November, 1900. from the Prisoners’ Committee I was successful in securing proper To the Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar and Waterford, treatment of the sick. I would here remark incidentally that the K.P., G.C.B., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., V.C., Commander-in-Chief Government or its subordinates gave no help whatever to the sick and of the British Forces in South Africa. wounded officers in Pretoria and that everything they received was MY LORD,-I am persuaded that your lordship would regret any act obtained by me in the first instance from the Red Cross Society and of injustice which upon mistaken information you might possibly later from private sources. commit, and I approach you with a confident hope that you will cause I venture to hope that if your lordship will kindly give attention to further and more complete inquirv to be made and will not hesitate the above true representations as to my position and what I did, you if and when satisfied that you have drawn in error a conclusion most will conciude that not having been appointed by the Government to injurious to myself to remove from my good name the shadow of your look after the prisoners not only was I not officially responsible for a In letter from to adverse reflection. the Secreyour lordship heavy what was left undone, but further as an ordinary medical practitioner tary of State for War, covering the report of the proceedings of a I did not ignore any lack of proper treatment brought to my Court of Enquiry held with regard to the treatment of British prisoners notice, but did what I could to improve the circumstances of war in Pretoria, the following passage occurs :-" On the other hand and alleviate the sufferings of men as well as officers. Upon it would be difficult to condemn too strongly the conduct of Dr. H. P. representations which have been erroneously made your lordVeale, M.B. (Cambridge), whose heartlessness in ignoring the dis- ship, it appears, has judged me adversely as having ignoredremongraceful treatment of the sick prisoners and the remonstrances strances addressed to me by other medical officers. This can only addressed to him by the medical officers in immediate charge of them apply to one medical officer-viz., Dr. Haylett. This gentleman’s calls for the severest reprobation." appointment was specially urged by me because I thought that with From the passage above quoted, read with the letter from Colonel his knowledge of the :Dutch language and acquaintance with the I infer me to must that have Hunt, your lordship supposes officials he might perhaps achieve much improvement at Waterval, occupied some official or recognised position in which I could have when, prior to his appointment of the 16th January, 1900, which made remedied the condition of affairs regarding prisoners of war. The him responsible, he wrote to me on the condition of affairs at Waterval statement to this effect made by Colonel Hunt in his report naturally on the 27th December, 1899, this matter was being dealt with by the and probably weighed greatly with you. I beg, therefore, plainly to appointment of the inspecting commission previously mentioned in point out to your lordship that though a member I never was head of this letter. I had his letter translated into the official language and the Red Cross Society nor at any time occupied any official position forwarded it the same day with a covering letter to the Prisoners’ giving me any authority or control with regard to the prisoners of war. Committee (copies handed to Court of Enquiry). Then Dr. Haylett Such services as I rendered in connexion with the prisoners of war at wrote again re-stating the condition of affairs and also stating that he the Racecourse and elsewhere were rendered gratuitously on humane consideration only. I may mention incidentally that the Transvaal Red Cross Society depending on public voluntary subscription none of its members or servants to my knowledge received any remuneration. The administration of matters affecting prisoners of war was placed by the State as a distinct department under a specially appointed committee to which the charge of the sick and wounded was allotted. This appears from the separate resolution of the Executive Council appointing the "Medical Commission" and conferring on it jurisdiction over all medical matters and men in the State except the prisoner8 of war. I was associated with the Medical Commission, but was at no time engaged in the distinct department mentioned or by the Prisoners’ Committee, and it may be eluestioned whether, according to the Executive Council resolution, I could have been so engaged. Be that as it may, I had no function or appointment in that connexion. But it may be felt that though I had no official position to redress evils of administration, yet as a graduate of a great British University something more might be expected of me than of other medical practitioners. On this head I beg to point out that I used such opportunities as I had not merely for ameliorating the condition of things of Waterval, but with a view to preventing that spot being used as it was. I would point out that I dreaded what might happen there and most cheerfully seized the opportunity given me of inspecting Waterval on the 27th
December, 1899. On the 28th December, 1899, sent a report totally condemning Waterval as a site for a camp. I had the water analysed and I forwarded to the Prisoners’ Committee the report condemning it as unfit for use. In order that they should not be overlooked or forgotten I repeated these reports on the 12th January, 1900, to emphasise the danger the Prisoners’ Committee was running. Copies of these letters were given by me to the Court of Enquiry. To prevent mischief to health at Waterval I on the same date further pressed by letter upon the Prisoners’ Committee that the sick should be immediately removed to the Racecourse, feeling certain that this step would reduce the risks entailed by the distance of Waterval from Pretoria (copies given to the Court of Enquiry). In addition to these written efforts, and quite beyond any official function entrusted to me, I urged verbally on officials highly placed under the Government and on members ofthe Prisoners’ Committee the above or other means for preventing or ameliorating the unsatisfactory state of affairs. I was more than once told that the Prisoners’ Committee did bring the matter before the Executive Council who, however, refused to alter matters. On the 16th January, 1900, I urged (copy handed to Court of Enquiry) the Prisoners’ Committee to appoint Dr. Haylett as resident "responsible" medical officer of the committee at Waterval, in the hope that if the committee went so far it would also enable the officer to do his work under proper conditions. His 1irst appointment to Waterval, dated 27th December, 1899. did not speak of responsibility and my suggestion was to make Dr. Haylett, the otlicer at Waterval, responsible for the sick and wounded to th(’ committee who should support him. Dr. Haylett, in full knowledge of the condition of affairs, accepted the 16th January, 1900, appointment, but I cannot say to what extent also h used his position to inttucuce the members of the Prisoners’ Committee and to press on steps desirable. He may have a done so ineffectually. What I wish to emphasise is that he was in position independent of myself. When holding the temporary position of commissariat officer to the "Medical Commission " again triusl to help the prisoners and wrote to the Prisoners Committee (24th Feb,1900, copy given to Court of Enquiry) uring it to arrange for placing the sick and wounded prisoners under the Medical Commission," so that burghers and prisoners could be treated alike, and the reply I got was that the Prisoners’ Committee was satisliel with things as they were. I also urged through the State Attorney, who was a member of the " Medical Commission,"that those prisoners who came under the release clause of the Geneva Convention should be released. I worked this until Dr. Bierens ole Ifaau and myself were appointed a board to report on the physical condition of certain prisoners. We reported that three
had interviewed the Prisoners’ Committee. I told him that I was not the proper person to write to and advised him to continue to address the Prisoners’ Committee and the Executive Council, but said that if he would write his letters in Dutch (the official language) I would forward and support them. He had, in fact, caused me unnecessary trouble in getting his previous letter forwarded as I had to get someone to translate it-not being able to do so myself and I had no secretary, as has been stated. The other notes I received from him being requests for medicines were at once handed to local chemists for execution and he received these consignments without delay. I had, indeed, also informed him that it was, strictly speaking, the duty of the Prisoners’ Committee to supply him with medicines, but I was willing to see to these supplies and did so, as he held, not without reason, that it was vain to expect the requisite prompt attention from the Prisoners’ Committee. It is not easy to understand how Dr. Haylett could seemingly have believed that I was the chief medical officer, and it is noteworthy that when he approached the Prisoners’ Committee on the 7th January, 1900, he does not appear to have made complaint as to his unanswered letters. In this connexion I may refer incidentally to his letter dated the 7th January, 1900, which was handed to the Court of Enquiry. His action throughout scarcely supports his assumed attitude as my subordinate. Dr. Haylett did not, as must be inferred from the statement recorded, tender his resignation by way of protest against his unsatisfactory position, but it will be found that he resigned rather because the Pietersburg Railway Company would otherwise be unable to continue his appointment as their medical officer. In fairness to myself I must call your lordship’s sttention to the fact that it was not possible for me at the Court of Enquiry to meet allegations against me which were not disclosed or known to me, and when at a later date the apprehension that I was regarded unfavourably caused me to write to your lordship the interview which I had with Colonel Cowan removed it. At this distance in Cape Town I am somewhat handicapped in presenting mv exoneration, as, of course, I have not with me all the materials which would be available at Pretoria. There is a special point of fact in Colonel Hunt’s report which may, perhaps, have contributed to place blame which cannot justly attach to me. I refer to his remarks with regard to the sick in the gaol and their non-removal. No other medical man being mentioned by name it may be supposed that I am referred to, whereas the gaol was and is under the district surgeon. Colonel Hunt in the same letter attributes to me unworthy motives for action or inaction for which he believes me responsible or culpable and yet cannot have formed his conclusions from any personal observations nor can he have been aware of the fact that my position and practice were entirely independent of remuneration or reward from the Government of the State. It may be that your lordship will, amidst much more important work, find time and occasion to investigate my appeal and ascertain the facts which I have here loosely strung together, and I most earnestly trust that such reconsideration of my case may remove the stigma under which your censure leaves me before the world.
"THE
QUESTION OF THE COMMUNION CUP." To the Editors of THE LANCET.
SIRS,-Theologians and students of ritual will, I think, welcome the discussion in THE LANCET of the question of possible infection conveyed by the touch of the communion cup. Obviously there are two separate questions-one of medical fact, the other of ritual observance. The question