Clinical Chemistry 49:4

699 705 (2003)

History

William Prout: Early 19th Century

Physician-Chemist
Louis Rosenfeld
and was over by the age of 13. By the age of 17, aware of
his own educational deficiencies, he pursued a pattern of
systematic learning, first in a private academy and then in
a classical seminary. He was encouraged to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. (Oxford and Cambridge were outside his social status.) Thus, in 1808, at age
23, he enrolled at Edinburgh. He was graduated MD in
June 1811. He next walked the wards of the United
Hospitals of St. Thomass and Guys to obtain practical
experience and passed the examination for licentiate of
the Royal College of Physicians in December 1812. Prout
was admitted as a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1829; he also served two terms as vice-president
of the Medical Society of London (8, 9 ).
Prout was an early riser who did some of his scientific
work before he breakfasted at 7 in the morning. The
remainder of the day was devoted to his patients. Besides
his extensive town practice in urinary disorders, packages
arrived daily from the country for analysis. Prout was not
primarily a clinician and had a reputation for being lax in
charging his patients. Most of his analyses and scientific
experiments were made with ingenious apparatus of his
own design, for which he spared no expense in construction. This seeming unconcern about money kept him from
the financial success of many of his colleagues at a time
when great fortunes could be made in the practice of
medicine (9, 10 ).
During the first half of the 19th century, clinical chemistry emerged from applications of chemistry to medical
diagnosis. The discoveries of new substances in the
healthy and diseased body that accompanied the beginning of scientific medical research, and the development
of organic and physiological chemistry, spawned a wave
of interest in clinical chemistry as a recognizable identity
in the late 1830s and 1840s. There followed a systematic
search for pathologic changes in the chemical composition
of body fluids to guide medical diagnosis, follow the
course of the disease, and control therapy. A search for
chemical explanations for physiologic phenomena became a major preoccupation of leading scientists during
the 19th century.

In the early 19th century, the discoveries of new substances in the healthy and diseased body spawned a
search for chemical explanations for physiologic phenomena to guide medical diagnosis and control therapy.
William Prouts work on the nature and treatment of
diseases of the urinary organs established his reputation
as one of Britains most distinguished physiological
chemists. Prout was very skeptical of chemical remedies
because of possible side effects, but he suggested iodine
treatment for goiter. He emphasized that a satisfactory
diet should include carbohydrates, fats, protein, and
water. In 1824, he showed that the acid of the gastric
juice was hydrochloric acid. Prout applied chemical
methods and reasoning to physiology and was criticized
for his view that the bodys vital functions could be
explained by chemistry. His remedy for lack of progress
in animal chemistry was for physiologists to become
chemists. Prout stimulated much discussion on atomic
theory by his hypothesis that the atomic weights of all
chemical elements are whole-number multiples of the
atomic weight of hydrogen and that the chemical elements were condensed from hydrogen atoms.
2003 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

In an age when the description of disease was often a

mere catalog of symptoms, there were few medical men in
the early 19th century who appreciated the usefulness of
chemistry in the explanation and treatment of disease.
Although investigations in the chemistry of disease were
being carried out in the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s, its
application in routine diagnosis was not widespread. The
work of several British physician-chemistsRees (1 ),
Bence Jones (2 ), and Marcet (3 ) has been described in
previous issues of this journal, and elsewhere by N.G.
Coley (4 6 ) and F.W. Putnam (7 ). The subject of this
article is William Prout (17851850) (Fig. 1).
Like many other 19th century physicians of humble
origins, Prouts earlier education was almost negligible

Address for correspondence: 1417 East 52nd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11234.

Received November 14, 2002; accepted January 15, 2003.

699

700

Rosenfeld: William Prout: Early 19th Century Physician-Chemist

Fig. 1. William Prout.

From a miniature by Henry Wyndham Phillips (Courtesy of the Royal College of
Physicians of London).

Preparation and Analysis of Urea

In seeking the cause of urinary calculi, Antoine Franc ois
Fourcroy
(17551809)
and
Nicholas
Vauquelin
(17631829) investigated the composition of urine and
developed procedures for the isolation and study of urea.
There had been earlier descriptions. Johannes van Helmont (15771644) (11 ) had isolated two salts from urine:
one was sea salt, which he said was taken with food; the
other, salt of urine, was of different crystalline form and,
unlike the sea salt, was volatile when heated (probably
urea). Sometime before 1727, Hermann Boerhaave (1668
1738), the renowned Dutch physician-chemist, described
a crystalline residue obtained from urine that he had
concentrated by heating, filtering, washing, and evaporating, which he called the native salt of urine and which
he distinguished from sea salt (sodium chloride), also
present in urine. Hilaire Marin Rouelle (1718 1779) in
1773 prepared an impure urea from the alcoholic extract
of an evaporated urine residue. Rouelle called it matie`re
savonneuse (soapy matter). In England in 1797, William
Cruickshank (17451800) added concentrated nitric acid
to evaporated urine and obtained crystalline urea nitrate.
In 1799 Fourcroy and Vauquelin prepared a nearly
pure urea, which they named ure e (12 ). They prepared a
much purer urea in 1808 when the sparingly soluble urea
nitrate was neutralized by aqueous potassium carbonate.
After evaporation to dryness, the residue was extracted
with alcohol to separate the urea from the potassium
nitrate. Evaporation of the alcoholic solution yielded
crystals of urea. Because an aqueous solution of urea
decomposes on boiling to carbonic acid, acetic acid, and

ammonia, they speculated that ammonia-containing calculi might be formed by the partial fermentation of urea
in the bladder.
Finally in 1817, a pure urea product was isolated, its
properties, appearance, and chemical reactions were described, and its analysis was accurately determined by
William Prout (first exhibited, he said, at some lectures he
had given 3 years earlier). Prout introduced a purification
step with animal charcoal before extraction with boiling
alcohol. This became the textbook method of choice for
the preparation of urea. Prouts analysis (by combustion)
of the percentage composition of the component elements
of urea was virtually identical with the values calculated
from what we now know to be its formula (13, 14 ).
Prout used Gay-Lussacs method (1816) of completely
oxidizing the urea with black oxide of copper, which at a
suitable temperature readily gives up its oxygen to hydrogen and carbon but not to nitrogen. The nitrogen,
uncombined, was collected in a calibrated gasometer.
Prout calibrated his weights with platinum standards,
and all materials to be analyzed were dried over sulfuric
acid in a vacuum apparatus of his own design, at 200 F
(13 ). Prout was meticulous in his analytical techniques
and strove for purity of reagents and organic substances.
Years later, Prout acknowledged that from its composition I was satisfied that it might be formed artificially. I
made numerous attempts to form it, but did not succeed;
and the honour of forming the first organic product artificially
is due to Wo hler. Prout also claimed to have found urea
(or a substance having most of its properties) in blood in
1816. Believing it was accidental, he did not pursue the
inquiry, but made a note of it (15 ).
Chemical science had a slow and difficult beginning.
Nearly a century elapsed between the first isolation of
urea by Boerhaave and the preparation and analysis of the
first pure specimen by Prout. Only a few years later, in
1828, the laboratory synthesis of urea by Friedrich Wo hler
(1800 1882) played an important role in stimulating further synthesis in organic chemistry.

Prouts Hypothesis
Prouts name is associated with the two hypotheses of
integral atomic weights and the unity of matter, i.e., the
atomic weights of all chemical elements are whole-number multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen. He
suggested that hydrogen might be the primary matter
from which all other elements were formed. This was
expressed in two papers in the Annals of Philosophy (1815,
1816). They were titled The Relationship between Specific Gravities of Bodies in Their Gaseous State, and the
Weights of Their Atoms. The papers dealt with the
calculation of the specific gravities (relative densities) of
the elements from the published data of other chemists.
He derived an excellent value for hydrogen, which owing
to its light weight had been very difficult to determine
accurately by experiment.
Prouts Hypothesis was perhaps his most widely

Clinical Chemistry 49, No. 4, 2003

known contribution to chemistry. It stimulated discussion

and improvement of analysis and forced interest in the
determination of accurate atomic weights, and thereby in
the atomic theory, and in a search for a system of
classification of the elements (16, 17 ). Published anonymously at first, Prout quickly identified himself as the
author when he found that his ideas had been accepted by
the eminent chemist Thomas Thomson, founder of the
Annals of Philosophy. Prout was content to leave the
promotion of his speculation to the status of a law to
Thomson while he himself returned to perfecting techniques of organic analysis.

Analysis of Urine
Entering the 19th century and the era of atomic weights
and atomic theory, chemistry began to disengage from its
qualitative and descriptive character in the previous century when applications of chemistry to medicine were
directed to the understanding of disease rather than to its
relief. Chemistry being a science of observation, Prout
looked forward to the time when chemistry shall be
brought more under the control of the laws of quantity
. . . (18 ). To those scientists known as vitalists, it was
inconceivable that bodily functions could be explained by
chemistry. They believed that the composition and workings of the body required a study of the vital functions,
and they denied chemistry a role in physiology. Prout was
an early and consistent advocate of the benefits to be
derived from the application of chemistry to physiology
in the treatment of disease (8 ). He also favored the study
of physics and chemistry by medical students. One of
Prouts admirers was Henry Bence Jones (18131873),
who in 1850 credited him with being first to make the
connection between chemistry and medical practice (19 ).
In 1814 Prout advertised a course of evening lectures
on animal chemistry in his home. The topics were respiration and urine chemistry. Urine was subjected to systematic and scientific examination by Prout. His major
work, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Treatment of Gravel,
Calculus, and Other Diseases Connected with a Deranged
Operation of the Urinary Organs (1821), was very popular
and helped establish his reputation in Great Britain and
Europe as one of Britains distinguished physiological
chemists. Prouts goal was to establish a coherent connection between the chemical processes of metabolism and
excretion, as manifest in the urine, and the observed
changes in the patients clinical status.
By 1825, when the second edition of his book was
published, now renamed An Inquiry Into the Nature and
Treatment of Diabetes, Calculus, and Other Affections of The
Urinary Organs, most of our present-day knowledge of the
composition of urinary stones had been discovered. This
book is one of the earliest to contain a list of Tests,
Apparatus, &c. required in making Experiments on the
Urine, and this included litmus paper (blue and red),
turmeric paper (plant extract exhibits color change from
yellow to reddish-brown, and violet on drying, and is a

701

test for alkalinity), a specific gravity bottle or a small

portable hydrometer that Prout designed, blowpipe, forceps, two small discs of plate glass for discriminating pus
from mucus, and a watch glass for detecting an excess of
urea on addition of nitric acid. These, with one or two
small test tubes, and small stoppered phials, containing
solutions of pure ammonia, potash, and nitric acid, can be
readily packed into a small portable case, or pocket book,
and will be sufficient, by the aid of a common taper or
candle, to perform all the experiments on the urine, and
urinary productions, that are commonly necessary in a
practical point of view (20 ). Alexander Marcet had
described a portable chemical kit in 1817 and showed a
line drawing of its components (3 ). Barely a year after
Prouts list of tests and apparatus, Richard Brights (1789
1858) studies of renal disease would add a spoon to this
portable laboratory, for revealing the presence of albumin
in heated urine.
Prouts routine for testing urine began with the 24-h
volume, the color, and the transparency. Some of the
immaginative notions of the uroscopists of the past were
still in evidence here. The belief persisted that the urines
volume, color, and appearance were indicative of certain
personality traits and were characteristic of particular
diseases. Specific gravity was measured and, if 1.030,
was considered diagnostic of diabetes. The reaction of
urine, known to normally be acid, was taken with litmus
paper. Albuminous urine (protein) was detected by heat
coagulation, and bile by the yellow staining of linen.
Sugar in the urine was still recognized by tastethere
was no other testand was not found in the blood even
of individuals labouring under diabetes, in whose urine it
exists in the greatest abundance; . . . . An excess of urea
regarded as abnormal but of vague significancewas
inferred from the length of time for crystallization to
occur when nitric acid was added to the urine on a watch
glass. Prout claimed that in diabetes and some other
diseases of the urine, very little urea is sometimes present.
The color and appearance of any sediment settling out on
standing were noted, but no microscopic examination was
made (21 ). Some of the tests may have been crude, but
they were chemical tests.
Prouts book appeared in five editions and underwent
several name changes, appearing finally in 1848 as On the
Nature and Treatment of Stomach and Renal Diseases; Being
an Inquiry Into the Connexion of Diabetes, Calculus, and Other
Affections of the Kidney and Bladder, with Indigestion. As
edition followed edition, even contemporary reviewers
criticized Prout for not examining and explaining some of
the theoretical issues involved in physiology. Seeking to
avoid controversy, he would settle these points with a
strong conviction that almost appears as dogmatism. His
inertia and conservatism were sharply criticized by The
Lancet (22 ).
The books lack of chemical formulae, which had
become almost universally adopted in the 1830s but
which Prout dismissed as unphilosophical expedients

702

Rosenfeld: William Prout: Early 19th Century Physician-Chemist

because they did not represent true compositions, and his

omission of discoveries and advances made on the Continent showed an inability to keep up with the newer
developments in chemistry and physiology and led to
rapid replacement by other texts, notably that of Golding
Bird (1814 1854) (23, 24 ). Prouts progressively worsening deafness since youth was a contributing factor. It
reduced his personal contacts with other scientists, which
made it difficult to keep up with the newer discoveries
and advances in chemistry and physiology on the Continent. When, after 1830, his hearing loss became complete
he withdrew from scientific society. Much of Prouts
research had foreshadowed that of Justus Liebig (1803
1873) and his school, but was soon eclipsed by their
achievements in the 1830s and 1840s (8, 25 ). Prout never
referred to the action of oxygen on tissues, whereas Liebig
and Wo hler based all their studies on the concept of tissue
oxidation. He also ignored the discovery of pepsin and
G.J. Mulders (18021880) proteine.

Chemical Remedies
Unlike many physicians, Prout had no wonderful remedy
to offer for urinary calculi; the only real solution was the
knife, for When a calculus is once formed, its further
enlargement is probably a common chemical process, and
will proceed whether the urine be healthy or not, for all
urine naturally contains the ingredients most commonly
met with in calculi (26 ).
Prout was very skeptical of so-called chemical remedies because of the possibility of dangerous side effects
and their potential for ultimately aggravating the disease.
Because the object of the chemical practitioner is at
best . . . to prevent the effects of disease rather than to
remove it, he considered chemical remedies as palliatives only, and attributed their acknowledged good
effects to their general than their chemical operation;
. . . (26 ).
Prout, however, did have a chemical remedy. After
iodine salts were found in certain marine life forms, it
occurred to him that burnt sponge (a well-known remedy
for goiter) might owe its properties to the presence of
iodine. In 1816, after trying hydriodate of potash (potassium iodate) on himself in small doses and experiencing
no ill effects, Prout suggested iodine treatment for goiter.
This therapy was successfully adopted by Dr. John Elliotson (17911868) at St. Thomass Hospital early in 1819
(27 ).

A Satisfactory Diet
In 1827, On the Ultimate Composition of Simple Alimentary Substances, with Some Preliminary Remarks on the
Analysis of Organized Bodies in General (28 ) earned
Prout the Copley Medal, the highest distinction of the
Royal Society. In this publication, considered during
Prouts life his most important paper, Prout reported on
his researches on food. He was the first to classify
alimentary principles (foodstuffs) into saccharinous (car-

bohydrates), oleaginous (fats), and albuminous (proteins).

The main purpose of this paper was to describe an
accurate procedure for the analysis of organic materials,
for which he used very expensive equipment of his own
design, and especially to determine the exact composition
of these major divisions and the subsequent changes
induced in them. Prout added water to his trio of foodstuffs and laid great stress on its role in assimilation. He
urged that a satisfactory diet should include all four
foodstuffs and be modelled on the great alimentary prototypemilk.
In 1831 Prout referred to the saccharinous group of
foodstuffs as hydrates of carbon (29 ). However, Carl
Schmidt (18221894) is generally credited with originating
the term carbohydrate (kohlenhydrate) in 1844 for those
sugars containing hydrogen and oxygen in the same ratio
as in water (30 ).

Chemistry vs Physiology: The Case Against Vitalism

In his three Gulstonian lectures on The Application of
Chemistry to Physiology, Pathology, and Practice, at the
Royal College of Physicians in 1831 (29 ), Prout complained that the physiologists paid too much attention to
mechanical or even metaphysical explanations in biology,
whereas for him biology called for the application of
chemistry. Citing the lack of progress in animal chemistry,
he attributed this to the inherent difficulty of the subject
but also to the lack of understanding by the pure, i.e.,
inorganic, chemist of the unfamiliar field of biology.
Prouts remedy for this lack of progress was for physiologists to become chemists (31 ). This was reminiscent of an
earlier appeal in 1816 when he stated: Chemistry, however, in the hands of the physiologist, who knows how to
avail himself of its means, will, doubtless, prove one of
the most powerful instruments he can possess; . . . . Furthermore, cautioned Prout, Organic substances should
be compared with one another, and not with inorganic
ones, with which they have little or no analogy. He
advised the physiological chemist to pay attention only to
what is actually observed and to avoid superfluous experiment and visionary hypothesis (32 ).
Prouts Gulstonian lectures got him embroiled in a
running acrimonious debate with Wilson Philip in the
pages of the London Medical Gazette (33 ). Philip, a physiologist and vitalist, could see no value in applying chemical methods and reasoning to the problems of physiology. Philip resented Prouts claim that almost no progress
had been made in physiology in 20 years. Philip charged:
Chemistry, and the science of the vital functions, are of
so different a nature, that if they be pursued with ardour,
and without this nothing can be done in such subjects, the
one will tend constantly to abstract the mind from, and
perhaps in some degree to unfit it for, the other; . . . (34 ).
By the 1840s, the vitalist Philip did a complete turnaround
to Prouts viewpoint, even claiming that the nervous
system was essentially chemical. Prout, on the other hand,
despite his call for the application of chemistry to biology

Clinical Chemistry 49, No. 4, 2003

became more committed to vitalism, but avoided a new

confrontation.
It always remained a shortcoming of Prouts scientific
method to use lack of knowledge as an argument for
vitalism. Prout believed that there exists in all living
organised bodies some power or agency, whose operation
is altogether different from the operation of the common
agencies of matter, and on which the peculiarities of
organised bodies depend, . . . . Of the various hypotheses
explaining these differences, Prout favored that of independent existing vital principles or agents, superior to,
and capable of controlling and directing, the forces operating in inorganic matters; on the presence and influence
of which the phenomena of organisation and of life
depend (35 ). Despite these expressions of vitalism,
Prouts application of chemistry to biology brought him
criticism from vitalists.
A strong prejudice existed in those days among the
leading physicians against chemical doctrines, and the
quarrels that ensued among them were frequently virulent and vituperative. Personal antagonisms were aired in
the medical journals, most notably The Lancet, whose
founder and editor, Thomas Wakley (17951862), was
adept at provoking dissension. The letters to the editor
were often lengthy and frequently signed by a pseudonym. Accusations of bias or incompetence against individuals or institutions usually generated a response and
counter-response, which went on from issue to issue and
helped stimulate circulation of the journal.

The Acid of Gastric Juice

In 1824, William Prout showed that the acid of the gastric
juice was hydrochloric acid. Gastric digestion had long
been the subject of speculation and experimentation. Van
Helmont discovered the significance of acid in gastric
digestion, which up to that time and for long after was
attributed to heat and trituration, but he reasoned that
gastric digestion is not attributable to acidity as such,
because neither vinegar nor lemon juice will digest food.
He attributed digestion to a specific vital acidity. Van
Helmont gave his chemical concept of digestion a vitalistic identity by stating that the acid in the stomach is not
the vital agent itself, but made its action possible (11 ).
The iatrochemical school that succeeded Van Helmont
explained all body functions as being determined by
chemical reactions without direction by any mystical or
spiritual force. Gastric digestion was regarded as a chemical fermentation, with saliva playing an important initial
role. With progressing mechanization of theoretical medicine in the early 18th century, the human organism was
regarded as a machine and digestion as a mechanical
process subject to physical laws. Van Helmonts vitalistic
doctrine of acid digestion was replaced by a theory of
liquefaction resulting from agitation. The reasoning was
that a chemical substance in the stomach capable of
converting solid food, notably meat, into a fluid would
also dissolve the fleshy wall of the stomach (36 ).

703

The iatromechanical theory of gastric digestion by

agitation of the food with resulting liquefaction dominated until the latter half of the 18th century. A new line
of investigation was opened by the French physicist, Rene
de Re aumur (16831757), who persuaded a kite (a species
of buzzard that easily disgorges what it does not digest) to
swallow open-ended tubes containing food. His experiment in 1752 demonstrated the dissolving action of gastric
fluid on the regurgitated foods.
These findings were extended by the Italian physiologist Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729 1799), who administered
food samples in perforated metallic tubes to a large
variety of animals. The containers were removed by
regurgitation or by sacrificing the animal, and the contents were examined for weight loss and other changes.
Spallanzani experimented on himself with food swallowed in linen bags, which he recovered for analysis. He
also obtained samples of his own gastric fluid by regurgitating on an empty stomach. In 1782 he studied the
solvent action of gastric fluid on foodstuffs outside the
body at different temperatures and concluded that the
basic factor in digestion is the solvent property of the
gastric juice, a term he introduced. He demonstrated
that trituration was not involved other than to make food
particles more accessible to this juice. By showing that the
solvent action of the gastric fluid can act outside the body,
Spallanzani disposed of previously held mechanisms of
digestion attributed to mixing aided by heat, putrefaction,
trituration, and fermentation, in favor of a chemical
theory of solution. However, he failed to recognize that
the solvent action of the gastric juice is attributable to its
acidity (37 ).
A new advance came from John Richardson Young
(17821804) in his MD thesis for the University of Pennsylvania. An Experimental Inquiry Into the Principles of
Nutrition and the Digestive Process (1803) showed that
the solvent principle of gastric juice is an acid and is part
of the normal gastric secretion. Experimenting with starving frogs and using litmus paper, Young demonstrated
the acidity of gastric fluid, but wrongly concluded that it
was phosphoric acid (38 40 ).
Prout had also favored phosphoric acid as responsible
for the acidity of gastric juice, before discovering the true
nature of the acid in the stomachs of animals. His report,
read before the Royal Society of London on December 11,
1823, was published early in the following year (41 ).
Prout identified free muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) in
the gastric juice of various animals and humans after a
meal and suggested that it was derived from the common
salt of the blood by the force of galvanism (electricity).
Barely 1 month after Prouts publication, hydrochloric
acid was independently identified in gastric juice by a
different method by Friedrich Tiedemann (17811861)
and Leopold Gmelin (1788 1853). They gave Prout credit
for the discovery of hydrochloric acid, but they also
claimed to have found butyric and acetic acid in the
gastric juice. Their investigation was published in Die

704

Rosenfeld: William Prout: Early 19th Century Physician-Chemist

Verdauung nach Versuchen (2 volumes, 1826 27) (Experiments in Digestion).

Prouts results were confirmed by the classic research
of US Army surgeon William Beaumont (17851853) on
Alexis St. Martin, a 19-year-old French-Canadian fur
trapper who developed a gastric fistula that remained
after the wound from an accidental gunshot in 1822 had
healed. Beaumont studied the appearance and function of
the exposed living stomach over several years and provided new information about the nature of the gastric
juice and the process of digestion in the stomach. He
published his findings in Experiments and Observations on
the Gastric Juice and the Physiology of Digestion (1833).
Beaumont recognized the acid character of the gastric
juice in response to food and alcohol. Its identity as
muriatic acid was verified at the University of Virginia
and at Yale (42 ). Old ideas, however, die hard. Writers on
gastric physiology continued to deny the presence of
hydrochloric acid in gastric juice or mentioned it merely
as one of the acids present.
Franc ois Magendie (17831855), a French experimental
physiologist, attributed gastric acidity to lactic acid. Because of his reputation, the acids identity remained an
open question for many years, despite Prouts discovery.
As late as 1856, Claude Bernard (18131878), the prominent French physiologist and former student of Magendie, still accepted his teachers view.
Investigators considered that the hydrochloric acid
was produced secondarily. They believed that the primary acid secreted was lactic acid, which then acted on
the sodium chloride present to produce the hydrochloric
acid that Prout and others had found. Still others attributed gastric acidity primarily to the presence of acid
phosphates in the juice. Only Beaumont had actually
handled pure gastric juice, and the material examined was
usually mixed with other juices and food residues. Sometimes the juice stood for a time before it was analyzed,
long enough for some lactic acid to be produced by
fermentation of carbohydrates, especially in gastric contents of low acidity. It was so contrary to physiologic
probability that it was difficult for some physiologists to
accept the idea that acid as strong as hydrochloric acid,
with a pH of 0.9 or less, could be secreted by the living
(parietal) cells of the stomach in the mammalian body
(9, 43 ). In 1850, Henry Bence Jones wrote: This gastric
juice, then, is a highly acid fluid secreted by the stomach. . . . What acid it is has not yet been determined.
Hydrochloric, phosphoric, acetic, lactic, and butyric acids,
have each been said to exist in the gastric juice (44 ).
All doubt was finally dispelled in 1852 by publication
of Gastric Juice and Metabolism. A Physiological-Chemical
Investigation by Friedrich Bidder (1810 1894) and Carl
Schmidt (18221894) of the University of Dorpat. From
their quantitative analyses of the gastric juice collected by
means of a fistula created in different species of live
animals, they demonstrated that the acid of gastric juice is
exclusively hydrochloric acid (43 ).

Final Days
Prout was of middle height and slim figure. The expression of his face combined benevolence with great intelligence, and his bland manner inspired confidence and set
the most nervous patient at ease. He always dressed with
scrupulous neatness, usually in black, with gaiters or silk
stockings. Although Prout had been ailing for some time,
his death was relatively unexpected. Sensing his approaching death, he asked that no postmortem examination should be made. Death came from an obscure pulmonary illness, almost certainly an abscess bursting into
the lungs (8 10 ). Prouts discovery of hydrochloric acid in
the gastric juice, and that none other was present under
normal circumstancesa discovery of fundamental importance in the explanation of the chemistry of digestionwas mentioned either in passing or not at all in his
obituaries (9, 10 ).
Prout was one of those physician-chemists whose
investigative work in physiological chemistry contributed
to the foundations of modern clinical chemistry. His
biography shows how varied were his interests at a time
when the boundaries between chemistry and physiology
were not clearly separated, defined, or understood. We
must study the history of the pastthere is nowhere else
to lookto understand how we arrived at the present and
to prepare for the future. If we ignore history or take it for
granted, we would become orphans in time castaways
on a desert island called the presentwith no idea of
where we came from or where we are going.

References
1. Rosenfeld L. George Owen Rees (18131889): an early clinical
biochemist. Clin Chem 1985;31:1068 70.
2. Rosenfeld L. Henry Bence Jones (18131873): the best chemical doctor in London. Clin Chem 1987;33:168792.
3. Rosenfeld L. The chemical work of Alexander and Jane Marcet.
Clin Chem 2001;47:784 92.
4. Coley NG. Alexander Marcet (1770 1822), physician and animal
chemist. Med Hist 1968;12:394 402.
5. Coley NG. Henry Bence-Jones, M.D., F.R.S. (18131873). Notes
Rec R Soc Lond 1973;28:3156.
6. Coley NG. George Owen Rees, MD, FRS (1813 89): pioneer of
medical chemistry. Med Hist 1986;30:17390.
7. Putnam FG. Henry Bence Jones: the best chemical doctor in
London. Perspect Biol Med 1993;36:56579.
8. Brock WH. The life and work of William Prout. Med Hist 1965;9:
10126.
9. Kasich AM. William Prout and the discovery of hydrochloric acid in
the gastric juice. Bull Hist Med 1946;20:340 58.
10. Memoir of Dr. Prout, F.R.S. Medical Times 1850;ns1:157.
11. Rosenfeld L. The last alchemistthe first biochemist: J.B. van
Helmont (15771644). Clin Chem 1985;31:1755 60.
12. Partington JR. A history of chemistry, Vol. 3. London: Macmillan &
Co Ltd., 1962:78,549.
13. Prout W. Observations on the nature of some of the proximate
principles of the urine; with a few remarks upon the means of
preventing those diseases, connected with a morbid state of that
fluid. Medico-Chir Trans 1817;8:528 36.
14. Kurzer F, Sanderson PM. Urea in the history of organic chemistry.
J Chem Ed 1956;33:4529.

Clinical Chemistry 49, No. 4, 2003

15. Prout W. On the nature and treatment of stomach and renal

diseases; being an inquiry into the connexion of diabetes, calculus, and other affections of the kidney and bladder, with indigestion, 5th ed. London: John Churchill, 1848:529 30, footnote p.
531.
16. Brock WH. William Prout. In: Gillispie CC, ed. Dictionary of
scientific biography, Vol. 11. New York: Charles Scribners Sons,
1975:172 4.
17. Brock WH. From protyle to proton: William Prout and the nature of
matter, 17851985. Bristol and Boston: Adam Hilger Ltd., 1985.
18. Prout W. Chemistry, meteorology, and the function of digestion,
considered with reference to natural theology. Philadelphia:
Carey, Lea & Blanchard, 1834:292.
19. Jones HB. On animal chemistry in its application to stomach and
renal diseases. London: John Churchill, 1850:preface.
20. Prout W. An inquiry into the nature and treatment of diabetes,
calculus, and other affections of the urinary organs, 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Towar and Hogan, 1826:300. [The 2nd ed. was
published in England in 1825.]
21. Prout W. An inquiry into the nature and treatment of diabetes,
calculus, and other affections of the urinary organs, 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Towar and Hogan, 1826:6,16,235,258 63.
22. Editorial. Lancet 1843 4;1:486 90.
23. Bird G. Urinary deposits, their diagnosis, pathology, and therapeutical indications. London: John Churchill, 1844. [A 5th edition
appeared in 1857.]
24. Coley NG. The collateral sciences in the work of Golding Bird
(1814 1854). Med Hist 1969;13:36376.
25. Bu ttner J. Justus von Liebig and his influence on clinical chemistry. Ambix 2000;47:96 117.
26. Prout W. Observations on the nature of some of the proximate
principles of the urine; with a few remarks upon the means of
preventing those diseases, connected with a morbid state of that
fluid. Medico-Chir Trans 1817;8:546 9.
27. Prout W. Chemistry, meteorology, and the function of digestion,
considered with reference to natural theology. Philadelphia:
Carey, Lea & Blanchard, 1834:footnote p. 75.
28. Prout W. On the ultimate composition of simple alimentary
substances; with some preliminary remarks on the analysis of
organized bodies in general. Philos Trans R Soc London 1827;
117:357.

705

29. Prout W. Observations on the application of chemistry to physiology, pathology, and practice. Lond Med Gaz 1831;8:3217.
30. Schmidt C. Ueber Pflanzenschleim und Bassorin. Justus Liebigs
Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie 1844;51:30.
31. Prout W. Observations on the application of chemistry to physiology, pathology, and practice. Lond Med Gaz 1831;8:257 65.
32. Prout W. Inquiry into the origin and properties of the blood. Ann
Med Surg 1816;1:277 89.
33. Lond Med Gaz 1831;8:641,705,737,769,802,843;183132;9:
38,69,73. [see Dr. Prouts rejoinder to Dr. W. Philips Reply. pp.
769 70.]
34. Philip APW. Some observations on an abstract of Dr. Prouts
Gulstonian lectures. Lond Med Gaz 1831;8:770 6.
35. Prout W. On the nature and treatment of stomach and renal
diseases; being an inquiry into the connexion of diabetes, calculus, and other affections of the kidney and bladder, with indigestion, 5th ed. London: John Churchill, 1848:452.
36. Pagel W. J.B. Van Helmonts reformation of the Galenic doctrine of
digestionand Paracelsus. Bull Hist Med 1955;29:563 8.
37. Dolman CE. Lazzaro Spallanzani. In: Gillispie CC, ed. Dictionary of
scientific biography, Vol. 12. New York: Charles Scribners Sons,
1975;553 67.
38. Bates DG. John Richardson Young. In: Gillispie CC, ed. Dictionary
of scientific biography, Vol. 14. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1976;558 9.
39. Kelly HA, Burrage WL. Dictionary of American medical biography.
New York and London: D. Appleton and Company, 1928:13523.
40. Kelly HA. John R. Young, pioneer American physiologist. Johns
Hopkins Hosp Bull 1918;29:186 91.
41. Prout W. On the nature of the acid and saline matters usually
existing in the stomachs of animals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond
1824;114:459.
42. Rosen G. William Beaumont. In: Gillispie CC, ed. Dictionary of
scientific biography, Vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribners Sons,
1970:5425.
43. Bing FC. Friedrich Bidder (1810 1894) and Carl Schmidt (1822
1894)a biographical sketch. J Nutr 1973;103:637 48.
44. Jones HB. Diagnosis and treatment of stomach and renal diseases. Lancet 1850;1:69 71.