545

coming in juxta-position with the uates; andat this, as well as former periods, her mindwas impressed with the fear of miscarriageof an imperfect child. Sexual differencesalso seemed to attach much to her imagina-tion, as she believed she could miscarry moreeasily with agirl than a boy ; and she tllOughi,pcrhups, tbis might be a boy. Thus we maytrace some connection between the accidentshe sustained, the reasoning which occupiedher mind, and the abnormal appearances ofher offspring.

In conclusion, Mr. Editor, without enter-ing on the practical observations which sucha case might suggest in an obstetric view, Iwould take leave to inquire, where there issuch a predisposition to miscarry amongstfemales, with whom it has once occurred,and where mental impressions exert suchpowerful influence, whether the former benot, in a great measure, the result of a pre-conceived notion that such will occur ?Should such be true it would be an import-ant duty of any practitioner, in similar cases,to establish the confidence of his patient inthe happy result of her pregnancy. In the

hope that I do not intrude too much on yourtime and patience, I remain, Sir, your obe.dient servant,

M. K. O’SHEn,1LR.C.S.Lambeth, Jan. 8, 1844.

M. K. O’SHEA, M.R.C.S.

FOREIGN BODIES IN THE EAR.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,-The observations on the extraction

of foreign substances from the external mea-tus of the ear, contained in the admirablepractical lectures of Sir Benjamin Brodie,now adorning the pages of your excellentJournal (page 458), bring to my recollectiona case which I witnessed some dozen yearsago at one of the great metropolitan hos-pitals. A boy was brought into the operat-ing theatre to have a pea removed from themeatus. The surgeon attempted to extractit with the forceps, and, in so doing, used noinconsiderable violence; indeed, he remarkedto the students around him that " somedegree of force was necessary in thesecases." The force employed, however, didnot avail ; the poor boy was removed fromthe theatre, with the pea still in his ear.Inflammation supervened, the brain becameinvolved, and in a few days the boy died.Conversing about this case shortly after-

wards with the late Mr. Alcock (to whosememory, as a most accomplished surgeon, I i

would fain pay a tribute of respect), he ishowed me a little instrument* which he

* Mr. Alcock was an expert mechanic,and made many of his instruments with hisown hands ; he had, consequently, providedhimself with a host of contrivances adaptedto all the more delicate operations ofsurgery.No. 1064.

had lately used on a similar occasion. Itconsisted of a piece of twisted copper wire,making a handle with a loop at the end,which diverged at a right angle from thehandle, or less acutely. This loop, adaptedto the size of the passage, and bent to a con-venient angle, was insinuated, by a knack ofthe operator, beyond, as it were, the pea, andthe extraction was easily effected.’ I trouble you with this little communica-tion because I feel that suggestions of apractical nature, however apparently trifling,may, at one time or another, prove of im-mense service in a profession so fraught withdimculties as is that of surgery. I have thehonour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

’ CHIRURGICULUS.Jam. 8, 1844.

LETTERS ON THE

NERVOUS SYSTEM OF THEGRAVID UTERUS,

Addressed by Messrs. PAGET, LAWRENCE,STANLEY, and SKEY, Sir BENJAMIN BRODIEand Dr. GULLIVER, to Dr. ROBERT LEE,after examining his Dissections.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-May I request of you the favour toprint in your Journal the following letters,which have been sent to me by different emi-nent anatomists who have recently examinedmy dissections of the nerves of the graviduterus. I remain, Sir, your obedient

servant,ROBERT LEE.

Saville-row, Jan. 15, 1844.ROBERT LEE.

1. from JAMES PAGET, Esq.St. Bartholomew’s Hospital,

Dec.. 19, 1843.My dear Sir,-After the minute examina-

tion of your preparations of the nervous sys-tem of the gravid uterus, which you per-mitted me to make, I examined your de-scriptions and Mr. Perry’s delineations ofthem. Both appear to me remarkable fortheir accuracy.With regard to any doubt whether the

structures which you have dissected be, asyou have described them, nerves and nervousganglia, it is chiefly by the following factsthat I feel convinced of the truth of your ac-count :-

1. That there is a visible and orderly con.tinuity between the well-known hypogastricand sacral nerves, and the most minute andremote of the nervous cords which you havedisplayed.

2. That these cords, like those of largersize, have such an appearance of beingnerves, as could not, I am sure, be imitatedby dissections of any other known struc-tures.

3. That the ganglia which you have foundare like those of other parts of the sympathe.

g 0