Hospital Reports

being a general opinion, the very reverse appears to be universally implied, and to be accepted by writers as a fact of which there is no doubt. Mr. Lawrence expressly acknowledges it. He says:"Now we do occasionally find that the two diseases exist together; but this is comparatively rare." (Lancet, of March 13th, 1830, p. 810.) In the reports of the Lock Hospital, as reported in the Lancet, of October 25th, 1834, p. 189, will be found cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea coexistent in the same patient. Dr. Fenwick gives, in the Medical Gazette, a report of 943 cases. Of these, 252 were cases of simple gonorrhoea; in 170, sores existed with gonorrhoea; and in 521, sores existed alone. It has occurred to me, in looking over this paper, that the questioni of the noncoexistence of these two diseases appears never to have entered his mind. He addresses himself not to that question, but to the advantage of giving mercury when such a combination exists. The only other authority I will draw attention to is Rayer, who, when treating on syphilitic diseases of the skin, speaks of what he calls the simple venereal ulcer, the vemerola vulgaris of Evans, and the common chancre of several French pathologists. He says they are " the most common of all forms of venereal ulcer ;" "they are frequently acconipanied with blenorrhoea of the glans, with urethral gonorrhoea, and with phimosis;" and " that he has observed every variety of venereal eruption and venereal growth as consequences of these sores." But may I not appeal to the experience of every man who has had even limited opportunities of judging whether he has not repeatedly met with gonorrhoea complicated with sores, whiclh in otlher cases he should have said immediately were syphilitic, and treated as such.