tter or effluvia of erysipelas. In evidence of some connection
between the two diseases, I need not go back to the older authors, as
Pouteau or Gordon, but will content myself with giving the following
references, with their dates; from which it will be seen that the
testimony has been constantly coming before the profession for the last
few years.

"London Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine," article Puerperal Fever,
1833.

Mr. Ceeley's Account of the Puerperal Fever at Aylesbury. "Lancet,"
1835.

Dr. Ramsbotham's Lecture. "London Medical Gazette," 1835.

Mr. Yates Ackerly's Letter in the same Journal, 1838.

Mr. Ingleby on Epidemic Puerperal Fever. "Edinburgh Medical and Surgical
Journal," 1838.

Mr. Paley's Letter. "London Medical Gazette," 1839.

Remarks at the Medical and Chirurgical Society. "Lancet," 1840.

Dr. Rigby's "System of Midwifery." 1841.

"Nunneley on Erysipelas,"--a work which contains a large number of
references on the subject. 1841.

"British and Foreign Quarterly Review," 1842.

Dr. S. Jackson of Northumberland, as already quoted from the Summary of
the College of Physicians, 1842.

And lastly, a startling series of cases by Mr. Storrs of Doncaster, to
be, found in the "American Journal of the Medical Sciences" for January,
1843.

The relation of puerperal fever with other continued fevers would seem
to be remote and rarely obvious. Hey refers to two cases of synochus
occurring in the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, in women who had attended
upon puerperal patients. Dr. Collins refers to several instances
in which puerperal fever has appeared to originate from a continued
proximity to patients suffering with typhus.

Such occurrences as those just mentioned, though most important to be
remembered and guarded against, hardly attract our notice in the midst
of the gloomy facts by which they are surrounded. Of these facts, at the
risk of fatiguing repetitions, I have summoned a sufficient number, as I
believe, to convince the most incredulous that every attempt to disguise
the truth which underlies them all is useless.

It is true that some of the historians of the disease, especially
Hulme, Hull, and Leake, in England; Tonnelle, Duges, and Baudelocque,
in France, profess not to have found puerperal fever contagious. At the
most they give us mere negative facts, worthless against an extent of
evidence which now overlaps the widest range of doubt, and doubles
upon itself in the redunda