224

MEDICO-CHIRURGICALSOCIETY.

- Soxne of our readers may havethought, from the long silence wehave observed respecting this So-

ciety, that we had forgotten thepromise we made on a former oc-casion, or relinquished altogetherthe wish of giving publicity tothe Society’s proceedings. Oursilence has arisen from neither ofthese causes. We had hoped, erethis, that some spirited memberor members would -have comeforward, and moved for a repealof those measures, the absurdityof which we have already demon-strated, and, the existence- ofwhich -renders it inexpedient for

many of its members to do what,on reflection, they know wouldbe useful to the Profession at

large. Our expectations havebeen disappointed, and we there-fore feel ourselves-called upon toreturn to the subject. ’

. In reporting what takes placeat the meetings of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, either thepapers read, or the discussion onthose papers must form the subjectsreported. To the publication of anyabstract of the papers the So-

ciety objects, because it fearsthat, the sale of the volume ofTransactions at the end of theyear, will be injured by thatmode of proceeding. We havealready shown* how ch!mericalthis fear is --how mean it would beif well founded—how dissimilarto the proceedings of the mostconspicuous learned Societies III

Europe—and how particularlydiscreditable to the character of amedical society. But as to

Vid, Lancet, page 51, vol.2.

the discussions that take placeon the papers, even the child-ish arguments rrf the Societydo not apply. The knowledgecommunicated during these dis.cussions is made known only tothe members, or their friends,and thus the profession generallyis deprived of information which,if the present regulation did not

exist, it would otherwise possess.Before proceeding any farther,’ it may not be improper just to ex-plain to those unacquainted with,the nature of the discussions, in,what manner they are conducted.The members of the Medico-

Chirurgical Society, unlike -thoseof many other societies, aim notat eloquence-their object is, toelucidate any particular subjectby the plain statement of faets,which may have come withintheir own experience, or which

they may, have met with in theirresearches into the writings ofothers. Considering then, thatmost -of the distinguished ment-bers of the profession, in the mt-tropolis. helong to this society;and that its meetings are on thewhole well attended, it will be

immediately seen, that a largestore of professional informationis likely to be elicited, during thediscussion. This is, really thecase ; the discussions are instruc-ctive-the facti disclosed are va-luable, and in proportion to theirvalue; is the society culpable forthe means it takes to repress theirpublication.

Let us bring forward proof to-illustrate what we have been stat-ing. At tlie last meeting but one,an interesting discussion took

place- on the tests ’employed ia

detecting the presence of arsenicin the stomach; it arose, in conse-

225

quence of a paper which was pre-sented on this subject; the paperwilt be printed in an authenticform by the society at the endof the year: bat the result of theconversations will be known onlyto those who were present.--Atthe very last meeting of this socie-ty, a conversation took place onthe occurrence of mortification inthe lungs; in the course of which,a great many facts were stated,which tend . to t.hrow consider-able light on the much-contro-verted subject of contagion.—The paper that gave ,ri-e to thisconversation, and which is of com-paratively. little value will beprinted; but the informationdls-closed during the discussion willnot receive publicity. The ques-tion proposed by Mr. EARLE‘forthe consideration of the societyrespecting the propriety of makingan incision in perineo, when thereis an abscess. in the prostate, toallow of a free exit to the matter,will not be communicated to thepublic, though the suggestion maybe of the utmost importance, and-the most extensive benefit mightresult from its publication. Weare not aware of the least shadowof argument that can be adducedagainst publishing the discus-sions that take place at this

society, and we still hope there-fore, that at the next meeting,the regulation which at presentdrevents it may be annulled.

PHRENOLOGICALSOCIETY.

Aft,:r some introductory ob-servations on Phrenolog’y byDr. WILLIS, on Saturday last,Dr. ELLIOTSON called the at-

tention of the society to the

phrenological developement ofthe head of PALLET, who mur-dered Mr. MUMFORD, in Essex,in December last. This murder,he observed, though it- mademuch less noise, was scarcelyless atrocious in its circum-stances than that committed byTHURTELL. The head was

quite as interesting as that ofTHURTELL, and quite as con-firmatory of the truth of Phreno-logy. The first and most obvi-ous circumstance to be observedon examining this head was, theenormous size of the animal orbrutal portion of it, as comparedwith the intellectual; the partsituated posteriorly to the earbeing much larger than the an-terior portion; the converse ofwhich was observed in- well-constructed heads. The gene-ral state of the organs was asfollows:— .

, No. 1. Amativeness, large.’ 2. Philoprogenitiveness, large.

3. Inhabitiveness, not peculiar.4. Adhesiveness, large.4. Combativeness, moderate. In

Tburtell’s head this organ wasvery large. -

6. Destructiveness, very large.7. Constructiveness, large : in

Thurtell’s head very small.8. Acquisitiveness, enormously -

large: in Thurtell’s not large.9. Secretiveness, very large.

10. Self-esteem, very large.ll. Love of Approbation, very large.12. Cautiousness, full. ,

13. Benevolence, very small. Thisorgan was very large in Thur.

tell.14. Veneration, full.15. Hope, but moderate.16. Ideality, small. In most mur-

derers this organ was found to,be very small.

17. Conscientiousness, very Sntull.18. Firmness, full.19. Individuality, large. .

20. Form, very large.21, 22. Siz.’, Weight, and Momenta,

doubtful. .. - -