902

THE LANCET.

LONDON: SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 1902.

The New Royal Warrant for the

Army Medical Service.

] THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT FOR THE ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.

WE publish on page 912 the new Royal Warrant for the

Army Medical Service. When the report of Mr. BRODRiCK’S

Committee on the Reorganisation of the Army MedicalService appeared it was met with a fierce fire of adverse

criticism. That there were many points in the report whichlent themselves to such criticism and about which grave

misgivings naturally arose cannot be doubted. For

example, Mr. BRODRICK did not appoint any army medicalofficer of long experience and high rank to serve on

the committee. This was unquestionably. in our opinion,a bad omission. But we ventured to remind our readers

of the fact that the document was, after all, only a

report, that many of the objections to it, some of which were

sufficiently obvious, might be fairly expected to disappearupon a more detailed consideration of a confessedlyimmature scheme, and that it might be well, before

entering upon any course which threatened to arrest all

further efforts, to wait until something more was knownabout the scheme and the intentions of the Government

in regard to it. The subject is notoriously a very

difficult and complicated one ; it has given rise to a longcontroversy between the Army Medical Service and

various Governments ; it is one which requires to be

approached with honesty of endeavour and purpose andto be dealt with in a broad and comprehensive spirit.That the Secretary of State for War and the members

of the committee were earnetly desirous of placing the

Army Medical Service on a satisfactory footing, of bring-ing it into close relations with the medical professionin civil life, and of encouraging medical officers in

the pursuit of their scientific and purely professionalwork, cannot, we think, be doubted. The names of the

distinguished men in the civil branch of the profession whowere members of Mr. BRODRICK’S Committee, some of whom

had had experience of war in South Africa and to all of

whom the requirements of the profession might safely beentrusted, formed a sufficient guarantee of the aim and

object that they had in view. Where they were likely to

fail, and where it has been alleged that they did fail, wasin respect of knowledge of the army and in technical matters

relating to the Army Medical Services.In reading the Royal Warrant which we publish to-day it

should be borne in mind that there are some projects formingpart of the scheme of reorganisation of the Army MedicalService which will probably be hereafter developed andcarried into effect, but which, being foreign to the RoyalWarrant, do not find any place in it. We allude to such

matters as, for instance, the provision of an army medicalschool and hospital in London and the organisation of an

army sanitary department for field service-the absence of

such a department being at present a weak point in

our system. The main features of the new Warrant

are such, we think, as might have been anticipatedby readers of THE LANCET. It will be seen that,

speaking generally, what was good in the recommenda-

tions of the report of Mr. BRODRICK’S Committee has

been adopted and what was otherwise has been altered

or modified in the warrant. The Warrant is a lengthyand complicated document which requires time for

careful study and we trust that it will receive such

study in a conciliatory spirit. It may not contain

all that has been justly asked for by the ArmyMedical Service, but it is a distinct step forward.

Speaking generally, and taking the Warrant as a whole

and in connexion with the place which the Director-

General will now occupy on the War Office Council,on the Army Board, and on the Advisory Board as

its President, it must be admitted that the ArmyMedical Service has made a great and important stride in

advance. This Warrant should improve it both in regard toits position as a branch of the army and in respect of the

power and influence which it may assuredly hope to exercisein the future.

To take some -of the more salient features of the Warrant

it will be seen that the Director-General is given an increaseof army rank and an increase of pay. The post is hence-

forth to be held for three years instead of for seven as here-

tofore, but its tenure is capable of being extended to

five years. The pay of medical officers is increased;provision is made for special pay and charge pay;the door is opened for scientific and professional studyand for professional merit and distinction ; promotion i

very largely by selection ; due provision is made for pro-motion to brevet rank and for distinguished service;and retirement at 20 years on £1 a day, as we alwayssupposed would be the case, remains unaffected. Nothingis said about India, which is a very importantpoint, considering the number of medical officers servingthere and the grievance in regard to the pay of the

junior ranks, but that is presumably because the IndianGovernment has not yet made up its mind on the subject.The Army Medical Service having long laboured under

many disadvantages and its work in South Africa havingbeen very unjustly belittled and discredited, it will take, we

fear, a little time under any circumstances to recover its

popularity. But we may, in conclusion, repeat our opinionthat the Warrant is, speaking generally, a good one ; and

it only remains to be seen whether it will prove promptly tobe an attractive one.

Radcliffe v. Price.THE case of RADCLIFFE 1’. PRICE recently decided in the

Chancery Division is one of considerable interest to the

medical profession. The plaintiffs, executors of Mrs. EMILYYDOWLING who died on March 23rd, 1900, sought to recoverfrom Dr. ALFRED F. PRICE who had for 11 years been the

medical attendant of the deceased three sums of £500,£100, and E200 given by her to him during 1899 and 1900.

Mrs. DOWLING died at the age of 80 years, leaving property