263TRIAL FOB, MANSLAUGTITER.—THE ROYAL SOCIETY.

Spare her the humility of going to the State as a beggar yearby year, for the paltry sum doled out with the miscellaneousestimates. It would soon give her strength enough to removefrom her present location as a lodger in Somerset-House, witha side-bell, up two pair of stairs, and a council chamber in asecond-floor back ! But these things can hardly be accom-plished, unless some scope for the affection and reverence ofher children-some natural tie between parent and offspring,be permitted. Dr. RADCLYFFE would, probably, never havebecome one of the greatest benefactors of Oxford, and thefounder of his magnificent library; and Dr. CAIUS would neverhave endowed the College at Cambridge which bears his name,if the connexion between these two eminent members of our

profession and their Universities had been snapped asunder assoon as they had received their degrees.

4

DR. CHAMBERS delivered the annual and his valedictoryAddress at the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, onMonday last; an address which was the essence of urbanityand kindness, tinctured with classical allusion and spiritedopinion. The chief topics were, as usual, the doings and cha-racters of the Fellows who had paid the debt of Naturewithin the year.The late Dr. BOSTOOK was justly described as an amiable

and excellent person, and as amongst our first systematicwriters on physiology.Dr. J. THOMSON, of Edinburgh, was the first, after Mr. RosE,

of St. George’s Hospital, to point out the error involved inthe mercurial dogma of JOHN HUNTER, and to show that truesyphilis, in both its primary and secondary forms, is not in-

tractable to the influence of other remedies besides mercury.To Dr. THOMSON we owe our present just views respecting theidentity of varicella and of other forms of varioloid diseases.One event in Dr. THOMSON’S career was mentioned with justdisapprobation. During the last illness of GEORGE IV., whichall know to have been a form of dropsy, Dr. THOMSON wrote aletter to-Lord LAUDERDALE, extolling the virtues of elaterium;a piece of meddling and a breach of medical etiquette andethics equally injurious to the patient and embarrassing to hisphysicians,which we are glad to see put down by such authority.We think our own efforts in the cause of medical ethics has per-

haps,in some degreeled to thenotice of this important question., Signor ToMasiNr, of Bologna, was celebrated as a clinical

physician, and for his adoption and promulgation of the viewsofRAsoRi, of Milan, relative to the treatment of pneumonia bythe tartrate of antimony. Signor TOMMASINI was an ardentadmirer of England and its institutions, saying that it was theonly country in which were to be found men, and a govern -ment fit for men. For further details we must refer to the

Oration itself, given at p. 243.The impression left on the mind by this Oration was one of

the most grateful kind, and we do not wonder at the proudeminence to which Dr. CHAMBERS has attained. Without anypretensions to oratory, it was a display of high and good feel-ing, of classical attainment, of medical knowledge, and of justcriticism, rarely combined in the same individual.

.

OF course we must postpone our remarks on the " CRONINcase" until after the trial, which stands postponed to thenext session. The grand jury have found a " true Bill "

against the prisoner.

THE ROYAL SOCIETY.THE following documents relate to an assertion made,.by

Mr. WHARTON JoNES, respecting the honesty of the Reportdrawn up by Drs. SHARPEY and TODD, on Mr. BECK’s paperon the Nerves of the Uterus. Mr. WHARTON JoNES’s words

to the President, at the general meeting, were-" The Report, my Lord, does not truly represent the paper;

the Report is not justified by the contents of the paper, but,"as your Lordship is aware, does, as I have stated in a com-"munication to the Council, contain allegations, some of which"betray ignorance on the part of the Physiological Committee’"whilst others are altogether inconsistent with common

"matters of fact."

Unless these assertions, and the facts which the documentsbelow furnish, are not controverted, the Physiological Com-mittee must lie under the inference which the profession willnot fail to draw respecting their proceedings.-ED. L.

Report of the ]}Ieeting of the Royal Society, April 2, 1846.At the evening meeting of the Royal Society, Mr.

Beck’s paper not having then been published, Mr. WhartonJones availed himself of the opportunity offered by the readingof a paper by Dr. Lee, " On the Nerves of the Uterus ;’ on the

president’s (now usual) invitation to a discussion, to expresshimself to the following effect :-

My Lord,-There is a point in the anatomy of the nervoussystem of the highest physiological importance, which, thoughnot peculiarly belonging to the nerves of the uterus, has beenlately brought under the notice of this Society in such closeconnexion with them, that I take the opportunity presentedby the reading of Dr. Lee’s paper to make some reference toit; and this I do in the hope of eliciting information regardingthe discoveries on the point which it is hinted in the Report ofthe Committee of Physiology appended to your lordship’sAnniversary Address, are contained in the paper, " On theNerves of the Uterus," to which the Royal Medal in physiologywas lately awarded.The point to which I refer comprises the structure of the

sympathetic nerve, and the nature of its connexion with thecerebro-spinal system.In order to put the Society in possession of the question, I

will, with your lordship’s permission, briefly recapitulate thedoctrine on the subject which is at present considered satis-factory by most physiologists:-The sympathetic nervous cords, I would call to the remem-

brance of the Society, contain, like the cerebro-spinal nervouscords, coarser and finer primitive fibrils; but there is this dif-ference between the sympathetic nervous cords and the

cerebro-spinal nervous cords-viz., that in the sympathetic,the primitive fibrils of the finer kind are much more numerousthan those of the coarser kind; whereas in the cerebro-spinalthe primitive fibrils of the coarser kind are more numerousthan those of the finer kind.The so-called organic fibres of Remak, which exist in the

sympathetic nerve, in addition to the primitive nervous fibrilswhich I have just mentioned, I need scarcely remind theSociety, are now very generally admitted not to be nervous,and ought not to be confounded with the true nervous fibrilsof the finer kind.In regard to the source of the primitive nervous fibrils of

the coarser kind, contained in the sympathetic, there has beenno difference of opinion that it is in the central organ of thenervous system; but in regard to the source of the primitivefibrils of the finer kind, contained in the sympathetic nervesthere has been, for the last few years, a controversy betweentwo of the most distinguished neurologists of Germany-viz.,Professor Valentin and Professor Volkmann-a controversyto which the attention of all physiologists has been forciblydrawn.

Professor Valentin maintains, that all the primitive fibrilsof the finer kind, contained in the sympathetic nerve, are,equally with the coarser fibrils, derived from the brain andspinal marrow; whilst Professor Volkmann, on the contrary,maintains, that though some are derived from the brain andspinal marrow, most of them have an independent origin inthe ganglions of the cerebro-spinal nerves, but especially inthe ganglions of the sympathetic itself.

Professor Volkmann’s is the view which has been best

264

carroborated by the results of observation. To the facts 1originally adduced by Volkmann in support of it,-such as, forexample, that the cords of communication between the sym- Ipathetic and the s] inal nerves contain a great number of thefiner kind of fibrils ; that of these a very few only come fromthe spiral rrarrow, but that a considerable proportion comefrom the ganglions on the posterior roots of the spinal nerves,whilst the rest-the majority-come from the ganglions ofthe sympathetic; these latter turning into the trunk of thespinal nerves, to be distributed with them peripherally,-tosuch facts as these, I say, originally adduced by Volkmann,there have been added, by Professor Kolliker, the importantone, that the fibrils which come from the ganglions haveactually their origin from ganglionic corpuscles.

Sucli, my lord, in a very few words, is the present state ofour knowledge on the subject of the sympathetic nerve, andthe nature of its connexion with the cerebro-spinal system.Now, what I, in common with many others of the Fellows ofthis Society, desire to be informed of, by any member of thePhysiological Committee who may be present, is, how far theresults of Mr. Beck’s investigations on the subject gainsay,corroborate, or extend this doctrine; for I must confess, thatthe statements on the subject, contained in the Reportappended to your lordship’s Anniversary Address, do notafford the desired information, but are as obscure and guardedas the statements of an oracle.To this appeal no answer was given by any member of the

Phvsiological Committee present. Dr. Sharpey (one of theauthors of the Report) and Mr. Bowman, who were bothwithin his view at the time, Mr. Wharton Jones particularlycalled upon by name, but without effect.

Copy of a letter addressed by -4f)-. Whag-ton Jones to the Presidentand Council of the Royal Society:-

35, George-street, Hanover-square, Dec. 6th, 1846.My LORD MARQUIS AND GENTLEMEN,-Before you proceed

to reappoint the Committee of Physiology, as hitherto consti-tuted, I would beg to direct your attention to certain allega-tions contained in the Report made by it last year, on theclaims of Mr. Beck’s paper to the award of the Royal Medalin Physiology, and to a comparison of them with the state ofknowledge on the subject, and with what was actually con-tained in the paper of Mr. Beck at the time the Report wasdrawn up.Your lordship and those of you who were present at the

meeting of the Royal Society, on the 2nd of April last, willremember that I took the opportunity presented by the read-ing of a paper on the Nerves of the Uterus, by Dr. Lee, to askfor information from any member of the Physiological Com-mittee present, regarding the discoveries as to the structureof the sympathetic nerve, and the nature of its connexionwith the cerebro-spinal system, alleged in the Report to becontained in Mr. Beck’s paper, but that no information wasgiven. You will also remember that I briefly recapitulatedthe doctrine on the subject which was at the time consideredsatisfactory by most physiologists.Mr. Beck’s paper having now appeared in the Philo8opMcal

Transactions, I have been able to ascertain for myself whatis contained in it regarding the sympathetic nerve, and itsconnexions with the cerebro-spinal system. Very little, Ifind, is said on the subject, and that little, so far from commu-nicating any discovery, is, in comparison with what has beenknown for many years, imperfect and erroneous. The allega-tions in the Report, therefore, manifest ignorance on the partof the Physiological Committee; but, worse than this, they arenot all consistent with common matter of fact.The accuracy of what I affirm you will find proved by the

following brief comparison between the allegations in theReport and the actual contents of the paper at the time theReport was drawn up.To avoid mistake, I here insert the part of the Report in

question, as it stands printed in the " Proceedings" of theSociety.

" 1. With regard to the sympathetic nerve, it is shown thatthere are both grey and white separate branches of commu-nication between that nerve and the spinal nerves. This im-portant fact has, it is true, been already pointed out in therecently published work of Todd and Bowman, but the authorof the paper has nevertheless the merit of arriving at it in-dependently, by his own observations.

" 2. lIe has further shown, that the white and grey consti-tuents of the nerve keep distinct from each other, not only inthe so-called trunk of the sympathetic, but also in its primarybranches, as far as the visceral ganglia, beyond which the

white and grey parts become intermixed in the nerves distri-buted to the viscera." 3. The precise mode of connexion of the white and grey

communicating branches with the spinal nerves is also care-fully investigated.

" 4. These observations appear important, as tending tothrow light on the constitution of the sympathetic nerve, andits relations to the rest of the nervous system."

In regard to the first allegation:—It is not a fact that ofthe cords of communication between the sympathetic and thespinal nerves referred to, one is altogether grey and theother altogether white. The grey cords contain whitefasciculi, and the white grey. But the fact, even as thusmodified, is not new-was not, for the first time, pointed outeither by Dr. Todd and Mr. Bowman, on the one hand, or byMr. Beck on the other. It is a fact which has now been wellknown for a number of years; besides, its importance hasbeen fully appreciated, which it certainly does not appear tohave been either by Dr. Todd and Mr. Bowman, or by Mr. Beck.

In regard to the second allegation:-Mr. Beck does indeedsay that the white and grey constituents of the nerve keepdistinct in the so-called trunk of the sympathetic; but hedoes not say, as is alleged in the Report, that the same thingis the case in its primary branches. But here again, thefacts of the case, so far as they are facts, have been alreadypointed out.

In regard to the third allegation :-It is not the fact thatthe mode of connexion of the grey communicating brancheswith the spinal nerves is carefully investigated in Mr. Beck’spaper. Nothing whatever is said on the subject. In regardto the mode of connexion of the white communicatingbranches with the spinal nerves, something is said; but notso much as has been already known for a number of years.

In regard to the fourth allegation, I think it sufficient onlyto observe, that it is in the highest degree a mockery and adelusion to pretend that such very imperfect observations asthose in Mr. Beclc’s paper add anything to the knowledge ofthe structure of the sympathetic nerve, and of its connexionswith the cerebro-spinal system.The comparison which has now been made is, as above

said it would be, between the Report and the paper as itstood at the time the Report was drawn up. Since thenvarious additions have been made to the paper in the form ofnotes and a supplement; but as they are all of a date subse-quent to the time when I publicly called the attention of theSociety to the state of knowledge on the subject of thestructure of the sympathetic nerve, and the nature of itsconnexions with the cerebro-spinal system, it is unnecessaryat present to notice them.On what I have now said, I am prepared to join issue with

any or all of the members of the late Physiological Com-mittee, either in writing, or vivâ voce in the presence of theSociety.In conclusion, my Lord Marquis and Gentlemen, I leave it

to you to determine whether, until an examination of thecharges I have brought against the Report on Mr. Beck’spaper be made, you will be promoting the objects, and up-holding the true interests of the Royal Society, by reappointingthe Committee by which the Report was drawn up.-I havethe honour to be, my Lord Marquis and Gentlemen, your robedient, humble servant,

T. WHARTON JONES, F.R.S.

SELECTIONS FROM CORRESPONDENCE.ETHERIZATION.

An li?q2tirer asks the question, "Would not etherizationbe an excellent remedy in spasmodic and neuralgic diseases land as it appears not to prevent muscular action, might it notbe administered with great benefit in the passage of biliaryand renal calculi ?"

Respecting any supposed ill consequences from the inhala-tion of ether, 11fT. Goddul’d (late assistant in Lord Wrottes-ley’s Observatory) says, " During the last seven years I havebeen experimenting on the effects of the ether several hun-dred times, and inhaled, probably, a larger quantity than anyperson living. I compute that I must have inhaled from thirtyto forty pounds weight of Howard and Huskinson’s strongest;and if really there are ill effects produced by its use, I oughtto have discovered it long ago, but I can with truth affirm,that I never experienced any, but was, and am, able to per-form long algebraical and logarithmic computations, requiringmuch thought, with the same clearness as before the periodmentioned. During the last three months I have discontinued