378 
Proceedings of the Royal Society 
argument of appeal to authority, yet it is evident that the amount 
of authority against him made Haller hesitate to enunciate his 
own views ; and, when we consider the number, the intelligence, 
and the acute attention of the obstetricians who form a majority, 
scarcely differing from the whole body, in favour of our view, 
we cannot but be weightily impressed in its favour. 
I must admit that some of the arguments made by obstetric 
authors to do regular service in defence of their view are very 
weak or quite vain. I may cite examples. Cases of parturition 
completed when the uterus is prolapsed, and is said to derive no 
assistance from bearing down efforts, are cited. But such cases 
prove almost nothing, even supposing they are correctly described; 
for there is in such cases absence of the ordinary difficulties of 
labour which consist in the propulsion of the child through the 
pelvis. Cases of expulsion of the child after death of the mother 
are quoted. But so far as I have perused them, they are given 
with a deficiency of circumstantial data such as to invalidate them 
altogether. Indeed, it is, in some of them, not even shown that 
the uterus acted at all; while in all there is the assumption that 
the difficulty of birth after death is as great as before it. The like 
objections may be made to examples of labour in asphyxia, narco¬ 
tism, and syncope. It has been asserted also that narcotism by 
chloroform affords evidence that the uterus is the chief agent in 
parturition. But I must assert the incorrectness of this argument, 
and I cannot understand whv Haughton should call attention to 
the influence of this agent, for any argument from it is valid, so 
far as it goes, only against his own views. I have, in a large 
experience, never seen chloroform inhalation destroy the action of 
the voluntary muscles. I believe it generally weakens their action, 
and it is well known that, at the worst, it only weakens the powers 
of labour. It is not known whether it weakens the uterine action or 
the action of the voluntary muscles in the greatest degree. If it 
does, as is alleged, when given profusely, destroy the action of the 
voluntary muscles, it certainly seldom completely arrests the pro¬ 
gress of labour. Lastly, cases of labour in paraplegic women are 
cited in favour of the ordinary opinion. But I fear, they do not 
even appear to favour it; and, with a view to the present question, 
they cannot be held as settling anything, seeing w r e do not know 
