1771THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

forward to re-election and we have little doubt that his

name will be found amongst the successful candidates.

The other member seeking again the suffrages of the

Fellows is Mr. F. RICHARDSON CROSS of Bristol. He is a

well-known ophthalmic surgeon and holds that position onthe atafr of the Bristol Royal Infirmary.As we have already said, there are three candidates who

have not yet held office and these are in order of seniority asFellows: Mr. W. BRUCE CLARKE of St. Bartholomew’s

Hospital, Mr. G. A. WRIGHT of Manchester, and Mr.

CHARTERS J. SYMONDS of Guy’s Hospital. Mr. BRUCE

CLARKE was a candidate for the Council last year but he

retired after the nomination, and before the day of election,and therefore received only a few votes. He is at present amember of the Court of Examiners of the College. He was

at one time one of the secretaries of the Association of

Fellows and this fact shows that he takes an interest in the

affairs of the College. Mr. G. A. WRIGHT of Manchester is

surgeon to the Manchester Royal Infirmary and professorof systematic surgery at the Owens College. He is the

most distinguished surgical representative of a medical

school which has for some years sent no member to the

Council of the College. Further, his candidature is beingsupported by the Manchester and District Society of

Fellows of the R3yal College of Surgeons of England and

support such as this from those who know him is of the

greatest value as an indication of the estimation in whichhe is held. The third new candidate is Mr. CHARTERS J.

SYMONDS. He obtained his Fellowship in 1881, later thaneither of the other candidates, but his Membership datesfrom 1875. He also possesses the degrees of Doctor of

Medicine and Master of Surgery of the University of London.He is surgeon to Guy’s Hospital.There are many considerations which enter into the

question of the choice of candidates for such a post asthat of member of the Council of the College. - The medical,school to which the candidate is attached has much effect

for it only too often happens that a candidate from a

particular school receives votes from those who have studiedat that school merely because of his connexion with that

teaching body. In the same spirit many provincial Fellows

vote for provincial candidates merely because they are pro-vincial. Thus at this very election a circular has been

issued, to which we have already referred, by the Manchesterand District Society of Fellows urging the Fellows of theCollege to vote for Mr. WRIGHT because he is a provincialFellow. With the candidature of Mr. WRIGHT we have

every sympathy, not merely because he is connected witha provincial school but because he would be a valuable

addition to the Council. The circular mentioned points outthat of 1341 Fellows 612 are resident in the provinces andtherefore it claims that the representation of this largenumber by only four members of the Council is inadequate.It appears to be forgotten that a Fellow is appointeda member of the Council not merely to represent a cer-tain section of Fellows but to do the work of the

Council. Now, the work of the Council does not consist

only of the 11 meetings of the Council ; these are un-

doubtedly important, but still more important are the

numerous, the very numerous, committee meetings in whichthe real work of the Council is done. It is at these com-

mittee meetings that the matters brought before the Council

are prepared and digested so as to be ready for absorption.This work is arduous and takes up much of the time of those

members of the Council who serve on the committees. Now

it is quite possible for a provincial Fellow to attend themonthly meetings of the Council and we have nothing to sayagainst the assiduity of the provincial members in attendingthe monthly meetings, but with regard to the committee

meetings the case is far otherwise. It is practically im-

possible for a provincial Fellow to attend regularly the

meetings of the committees, therefore they are rarelyappointed members of the committees, while London Fellowshave to bear an undue share of the burden of the work of

the College. These facts must always prevent provincialFellows being represented on the Council by a number pro-portionate to their numerical importance. Still, there shouldbe some provincial Fellows on the Council and we are

inclined to think that four is a very reasonable number when

we take into consideration all the facts. Another considera-

tion which should have weight with the Fellows in their

choice of a candidate is the question whether the candidateis or is not an examiner at the College at the time of

election. Undoubtedly the Court of Examiners should be

represented on the Council, for in no other way would it bepossible to know fully the thoughts of the examiners as tothe status and mode of carrying on the examinations of the-

College. Therefore, a certain number of the members of theCouncil should be examiners, but on the whole it is better thatthe number of those who are at the same time members of

the Council and examiners should be strictly limited. It must

not be forgotten that in many institutions it is not permittedthat members of the governing body should also hold’

positions from which they receive emoluments. Therefore,of two candidates otherwise equally suitable, if one is an

examiner at the College and the other is not, there are

arguments in favour of selecting that candidate who doesnot hold an examinership at the College.We have gone somewhat fully into the consideration of

the main points which should influence a Fellow in givinghis vote, though there are several to which we have not

alluded. There is, however, one further point to which weshould like to draw attention and that is the sinfulness

of "plumping." The plumper fails to do his duty asa voter ; he only concerns himself with the success

of one candidate and confesses to an utter indifference

as to the remainder of the candidates who may be chosen.Such an indifference may be all very well in politicalmatters but it is inadmissible in a matter which concerns

the well-being of the science and art of surgery in this

country.

Annotations.

THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ONINDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

" Ne quid nimie."

AN Italian correspondent writes: 11 There is no joyin modern labour,’ says Ruskin-a remark which would

be less true if labour were carried on under more favour-able sanitary conditions. To define the terms underwhich the labourer can live and thrive with the maxi-mum of cheerfulness and the minimum of risk was the

subject that in Milan on Saturday, June 9th, brought

1772

together the first Congress, on an international scale, that

has yet taken it in hand. Assembling in the Villa Realein numbers which included representatives of everyEuropean State, the Congress was opened by an able

address from its President, the veteran physician, sanitaryreformer, and Senator of the Kingdom, Dr. De Cristoforis.Noting his announcement that, for the first time in civilised

experience, there will shortly be established in Milan unaclinica per le malattie del Lavoro,’ I must pass on to theagenda paper as worked out in the four ensuing days-awide, not to say weltering expanse, over which I shall have

to speed in swallow fashion, skimming and dipping. First

came Dr. De Giovanni of Padua (happily restored to health)on ’IndividualitA e Malattie Profesionali,’ insisting on thechoice of an cccupation being determined not by personalpredilection but by the possession of the physical and mentalqualifications which admit of its being safely and satisfac-torily carried out. Night Labour’ was the next paper-areport on its dangers and the lesions it causes, by Dr. Carozziand Dr. Gardenghi, who showed (inter alia) the anoemia

produced by working in artificial light, the inadequatereparation of an exhausted system by sleep during the day,and the temptation to find in alcohol the energy and alacritythus withheld. The extra-social’ life led by the night-worker they hold responsible for a good deal of the morbidtemperament’ often noted in his class. An animated dis-cussion ensued which ended in an ’affirmation’ on the

part of the Congress that night work is anti-physiological ;that minors ought never to be employed in it, and that whensocial or technical reasons make it indispensable special con-ditions should be devised and enforced for minimising itsdisadvantages.’ Professor Albertoni of Bologna followedwith an instructive exposition of the Balance between

Alimentation and Labour, a subject which he has made hisown, and the discussion it evoked, sometimes pathetic in itspresentation of the scanty fare (or worse) under whichsevere and continuous work is carried on in Italy, waswound up with practical suggestions for which the Congressmight have made itself collectively responsible. On the

ensuing day (the 10th) Dr. Pieraccini read a carefully con-ceived and illustrated paper, to the conclusions of which the

Congress after due debate adhered unanimously, expressingthe hope that maintaining in force the physiological limita-tions to the hours of work for women and children, an ’

International Conference should study and propose for maleadults the maximum time-limit allowed by physiology forthe various industries and industrial occupations.’ Dr.Zanoni’s proposal that the maximum limit of the physio-logical day and the capacity of each worker for hisallotted task should be determined by medical visitshad many to approve it but failed to get unanimous

adhesion, and after it came a really brilliant paper byProfessor Crisafulli who dwelt on Phrenasthenia and

Delinquency in relation to certain Conditions of Labour.This exposition might have been more in place at the recentCongress on Criminal Anthropology ; all the same, it was fullof independent observation and striking suggestion and wentfar to prove that Ruskin’s ’absence of joy’ might have its exitin the commission of crime.’ Next in succession were Pro-fessor Schrotter on the Pathology of Divers nd Dr. Gigliolion the Pathology of Work in Compressed Air, whose reportculminated, after due discussion, in a recommeadation of theCongress that a commission, composed of Professor Schrötter,Dr. Giglioli, Professor Langlois, and Professor Glibert, shouldbe charged with the formulation of rules to be adopted by allworkers in compressed air (divers, submarine crews, navviesin tunnels, and such like). Among the papers that followedwas a highly important one by Dr. Lussana and Dr. Albertonion Alcohol and Muscular Exertion, valuable in its specifica-tion of the conditions under which wine (as drunk in Italy),in combination with food, is not only not contra-indicated

but positively beneficial, after which a report by thePresident (Dr. De Cfistoforis) on Maternity and Labourattracted many ladies among the auditors, its positionbeing luminously and effectively supported by the dis-

tinguished Florentine gynaecologist, Professor Pestalozza.Much interest was evoked by Professor Massalongo’s thesison Tuberculosis and the Legi-slature as regards Labour, atthe close of which, after a full and effective debate, theCongress came to a unanimous resolution calling for com-bined action on the part of the Governments throughout theworld for carrying to a successful issue the crusade againsta now demonstrably preventable disease. Communications

followed on ankylostomiasis and the maladies that besetthe labourer in Alpine tunnels, on Saturnismus’ and’ La Questione del Piombo’ (lead), in the handling of whichthe German Congressisti’ took a prominent part, windingup with practical suggestions for the protection of the

worker, and on the perennial theme of ’malaria,’ whichprovoked a pitched battle between Professor Grassiand Professor Celli of Rome, in which the latterseemed to have the advantage, particularly in vindicatingthe success of quinine prophylaxis as recently practised inthe Agro Romano. Other ground was effectively covered byexperts on the lesions caused by the sulphur industry inSicily and on the hygiene of factories dealing with sulphateof copper, till finally the Congress closed its proceedingswith the impression unanimously shared that State medicinehad made a notable and most promising start, in an inter-national sense, with every prospect of revolutionising theconditions of labour in the best interests of employers as wellas of employed."

---

"THE REVIVAL OF ’UNCTION.’"

OUR attention has been called to a curious correspondenceunder the above title which has recently occupied a con-siderable portion of the columns of the Yorks7tire Post andwhich deals with alleged examples of the recovery of sickpersons under the treatment recommended in the EpistleGeneral of that St. James who is supposed to have been Bishopof Jerusalem in the early days of the Christian Church andwhose letter was declared to be canonical by the Council ofLaodicea, A.D. 363. The correspondence commenced by aletter from a reverend gentleman named Saywell who, com-menting upon a passage in the " London Letter" of our con-temporary, proceeded to describe an alleged experience of hisown " 18 or 20 years ago," in which a " Mr. N.," not fartherdescribed, but suffering from "acute pneumonia," had been"given up" by his medical adviser and although conscious was"in extremis when Mr. Saywell applied the Jacobean treat-ment of unction and prayer, with the result that the patient,a quarter of an hour after Mr. Saywell’s departure, "sat upin bed and asked for a mutton-chop." It seems to be impliedin the narrative, although it is not expressly stated, that thepatient survived both the mutton chop and the pneumonia,and the story calls forth from another correspondent, Mr.Styring, a not unnatural expression of regret at the lapse oftime and the absence of details. Mr. Styring asks for amore recent example of the same kind and also for the fullname of "Mr. N.," apparently with a view to further

inquiry into the history of his case. Mr. Saywell repliesthat if Mr. Styring will come to him he will give him theman’s name and address and offers as a " more recent case "

one in which "two old Wesleyans" were supposed to bedying from bronchitis and in which they both recoveredafter receiving the Communion from him. In this instancehe apparently neglected the teaching of St. James,for there is no mention of anointing and the suffererswere not in extremis," as they are said to havereceived the Sacrament " reverently." Another corre-

spondent points out that the supposed recovery of the

patient suffering from pneumonia sinks into insignificance