The author first observes, that the skin, commonly call’d, The Drum of the Ear, is not the organ of hearing, as was vulgarly thought; for the proof of which he offers a great number of reasons and observations of his own, as well as the opinions and reasons of the most learned and judicious anatomists. He then observes, there are two passages to the organs of hearing; one by the outward ear, the other thro’ the back part of the mouth, thro’ which some people can hear, who cannot hear thro’ the outward ear. In this case he supposes the sound may be interrupted by the drum of the ear, which is seated in this passage, and being diseased, may hinder sounds from passing to the internal parts, where are seated the proper organs of hearing: In this case only, he supposes, that perforating the drum may prove a remedy for deafness, as depressing the chrystalline humour of the eye (vulgarly call’d couching a cataract) is daily found to be a remedy for blindness; and yet that operation has been as indecently and ignorantly ridicul’d as the experiment of Mr. Cheselden’s; one writer against that operation not scrupling to give his book the following title, A new method of recovering the sight by putting out the eye. He also deserves, that the scituation of the drum is such, that the operation may be easily made by a skilful person; and it being a very thin skin, he presumes it will not be very painful; and if so, the person who is to undergo the experiment will purchase his life upon very easy terms: But supposing it should be very painful; (which ’tis hop’d it will not be) on whom can the first experiment be so fitly made, for the service of mankind, as on one whose life is already forfeited to the publick?
[See [page 10. Col. 2]]
Read’s Weekly Journal, Jan. 16.
Entertains his readers with a letter from a correspondent concerning the present state of the Law; takes notice of the spleen which in general appears against lawyer and law; says, that the multiplicity of statutes is one of the greatest grievances of this kingdom. Quotes an opinion of a learned judge, that the best way to reform the law, was to abrogate all the acts made for its amendment. Asserts, that the founding a proper Corpus Juris, is the highest point of policy in a well order’d state. The old English method of proceeding against debtors, being judg’d inconvenient, produced the act on which was found’d the Capias in detinue, as the shortest way of recovery. Complains of fictitious suits, particularly in ejectments. He resents likewise the encouragement given in every court to the multitude of suitors, as contrary to the very ends of justice. Proposes some remedies for these evils, by an act empowering commissioners to inspect into
1. The condition of the law in general, common and statute; what of them may be repealed, and what not.
2. To frame proper instructions to direct those who are intrusted with the execution of the law.
3. To examine into the nature of actions on the case, which by judge Dodderidge is declared to be a feigned action contrived in deceit of the law.
4. To contrive how to prevent vexatious and litigious suits, by lessening the credit of parole agreement.
5. That every practiser of the law be obliged by oath to give his opinion justly to the best of his knowledge, to practise fairly, and by no indirect means procure false judgment in any case.
Lastly, To compile a compleat body of the law, with an institute of maxims and rules, a treatise of practice, and the forms to be observed by courts.