389

nerally be found in connexion with disease,frequently of a fatal kind, of some import-

ant organ.! This case was considered to be one ofgreat interest and rarity. The pathology,however, which Mr. Gossett attached to itwas disputed by Dr. Blicke, with whose

views the majority of the members did notcoincide. The subject was partially re-

newed on the following evening,

December 7tk.

Dr. BLICKE on that occasion commencedhis observations by begging to be allowedtwo minutes, which time he promised hewould not exceed, to make a few observa-tions on what he considered, to,say the least Iof it, " the highly improper tone of the dis-cussion of the previous evening." Had itbeen the first time he had witnessed it, orwere it only towards himself that it had oc-curred, he would have been the last man tohave commented upon it. He felt that hehad no reason on some former occasions tobe satisfied with the conduct which had beenobserved, and especially one of them, when!ie had satisfactorily pioved the correctness

of his disputed statements, byteference to

Smellie’s plates and Dr. Hamilton’s lectures.He certainly did not much heed it, and heappealed to the President, whether the tem-per of his observations had not on all occa-sions evinced the veracity of his present ’,,assertion.The PRESIDENT objected to Dr. Blicke’s

remarks on this subject. They were re-

flections on his (the President’s) conduct,which were not merited. It was his duty totake care that neither the feelings of Dr.Blicke, nor those of any other member ofthe Society, were hurt, and he always didso. He was sure that nothing occurred to

warrant what Dr. lilicke had said, or heshould have checked it at the time.Dr. BctcrE said, he should bow to the

chair, but must conclude by asking, if un-

worthy comparisons, questions which threwa duubt on his veracity, and the putting ofwords into his mouth which the most ino-rant could not have uttered, were not offen-

i sive to the rules and purposes of the So-

t clety.. The PRESIDENT having again checked the’

speaker, Dr. Blicke stated the nature of hisopposition to the views of Mr. Gossett. He

thought that gentleman had not regarded theaphthous state of the tongue as a symptom ofsufficient impottance to the true pathologyof the disease. He considered that symp-tom as alone an urgent indication that disease of some sort would take place. He hadhad several fatal cases of rupture of the renalartery, in which there was a protracted acid

state of the stomach, with constant aphthousulceration as the result: the moment thisstate of ulceration showed itself, aggravatedsymptoms of irritation of the kidneys or theirappendages ensued, and when these symp-toms were relieved, the ulceration alwaysgot well. The treatment of every speciesof aphthae laid down by authors, from thesixteenth century to the present period, wasadapted to the pathology, that the diseasedepended on an acrimonious state of thecontents of the prima, vice, and he thoughthe had a right to draw a negative proof ofthe correctness of this pathology, fromthese facts, and from the circumstance thatit had not been shown in the present in-stance, how this acrimonious state of thefluids could be produced by aneurism, whichought to have been done. He contendedfor the probability of disease of the kidneys,and mucous membrane lining the fauces and

primœ viœ, arising from an acrid state ofthe stomach, from a comparison of their

laborious duties, as evinced by the enor-

mous secretion from the blood. He was

, satisfied, in opposition to Mr. Gossett, thatthe only mode by which relief could he ex-I pected, was by paying attention to the state; of the digestive function the moment theaphthæ began to ulcerate.

Neither Mr. Gossett nor other members, appeared to accord with these views, as far

as they affected those which Mr. G. had

espressed in his paper.

WESTMINSTER MEDICAL SOCIETY.

Saturday, November 14th, 1829.

Mr. CosTEM.0, this even’ng, demon-strated his lithontritic instruments to a verycrowded meeting, and received the thanks ofthe Society for the candour and pains withwhich he did it. Many objections were

taken to the operation by some gentlemenpresent, but the majority went with thedemonstrator, and considered both the pro-cess and the instruments a very importantaddition to modern surgery. The whole

i proceedings were so similar to those whichwe lately reported at the London MedicalSociety, that it will be unnecessary for usto give any patt of them.

November 2lsl.

Professor THOMSON read a paper on

counter-irritants, which he divided intofour classes ; rubefaciants, vesicants, pus-tulants, and escharotics. The Professorcommunicated, in the course of it, some oldcases, in which he had successfully appliedthe actual cautery and caustics to tumours

in two patients. lie observed, in the course