366

the last session, your memorialists gratefully acknowledge the,recognition of the principle of protection, in the amended Bill, asnecessary to prevent the ravages of quackery upon the publichealth, but they at the same time are of opinion that the alteredrelation of the Apothecaries’ Company to the profession, effectedby the Bill, will render the penal clause of the Apothecaries’ Actof 1815 altogether inoperative against ignorant pretenders, andto maintain the respectability of the profession, the penalty in-troduced against those who may assume medical titles must beextended to all who may exercise the functions of the medicalpractitioner, no less than to those who merely assume his titles.

That your memorialists strongly object to the constitution andpowers of the contemplated °‘ Council of Health," as opposed tothe spirit of the British constitution, and the dignity of the en-lightened profession to which they belong. They cannot butview with alarm the idea of the whole profession, in its education,institutions, and interests, being committed to a body of men,however personally unobjectionable, who will be altogether irre-sponsible to their brethren for the exercise of their functions,some of whom will necessarily be unacquainted with the natureof the profession they are appointed to govern, and nearly all ofwhom will possess but little sympathy with the great bulk of thepractitioners of the country. They consider the power vested inthe Crown, in the appointment of the council, as disproportionate,and the exclusion of the general practitioner, except by thefavour of the minister of the day, as exceedingly unjust and ob-jectionable.

That the distinctions created by the Bill among the severalsections of the profession are invidious and unjust.

That the great body of general practitioners, who are membersof the College of Surgeons, and who have considered their claimto the honourable designation of 11 surgeon" inalienable and per-petual, should henceforth be deprived of this just distinction, beplaced on a level with those who have not entitled themselves toit, and be degraded below that small section of their brethrenwho have no higher qualification (so far, at least, as educationalsuperiority is concerned) than the mass, are grievances to whichyour memorialists cannot submit without the most indignant, yetrespectful, protest.

That the new regulations respecting midwifery intended bythe Bill, so far as providing for examination without furthermedical education, and the exemption of that most importantbranch of practice from the penal clause of the Bill, are exceed-ingly objectionable, inasmuch as no person ought to be allowedto exercise that branch of the profession who is not thoroughlyinstructed in all the collateral parts of medical education, and thusable intelligently to engage in a department of practice requiringas much knowledge and skill as any other.Your memorialists, in conclusion, venture to hope that the ex-

pressions of kind and respectful interest uttered by Sir JamesGraham, in his place in parliament, in reference to the medicalprofession, will secure for these suggestions a favourable con-sideration. They beg -

1st. That the constitution of the " Council of Health" maybe altered so as to admit general practitioners among itsmembers, and that its powers may be more defined andlimited.

2ndly. That protection be given against all unlicensed in-truders who may exercise the functions, or assume the titles,of the medical practitioner, and that powers be vested insome corporate body, recognised by the state as legalguardians of the medical profession, to carry into effectthose penal sections which may be granted for its pro-tection. And,

3rdly. That no distinctions, except such as superior educa-tion and extensive experience may confer, be given tomembers of the profession, and that these be tested im-partially by a competent medical tribunal, whose purityand efficiency shall be preserved and maintained by theprinciple of representation being fully recognised in theelection of its members.

THE PROTEST OF CERTAIN PRACTITIONERS OFWEST SOMERSET.

To the President and Council of the Royal College of Surgeonsof England.

WE, the undersigned, being fellows and members of the RoyalCollege of Surgeons of England, residing in the western divisionof the county of Somerset, although averse to taking any stepsthat might prejudice the interests of that body, particularly at thepresent crisis, yet feel it due to ourselves, as individuals, to recordour earnest and indignant protest against the recent proceedingsof the Council in the matter of the fellowship.

We protest against this as a departure from rules of theCollege intended for the protection of its members, inasmuch asthe arbitrary elevation of a few to the distinction of a fellowship,having no particular claim either on the grounds of seniority ormerit, cannot but be regarded as a virtual degradation of the manywho have received no such distinction.We consider the invitation to the mass of the profession to

undergo examination, and to payfees, in order to obtain the rankwhich has been thus conceded to a select few without either, tobe an affront to all those other members of the College.Henry Alford, F.R.c.s.E., TauntonFrancis Welch, F.R.c.s.z., dittoC. Hayes Higgins, F.R.C.S.E., dittoC. H. Cornish, F.R.c.s.E., dittoGustavus Gidley, dittoDaniel Pargitter, M. R. C. S. L., dittoJohn Liddon, M.R.C.S.L., dittoCharles Hugo, M.R.C.S.E., dittoW. Marwood Kelly, M.D., M.R.C.S.E.,and L.A.c., Hospital, ditto

George Cordwent, M.R.C.S.L., dittoHenry Gully Foy, Ai.R.c.s.E., dittoJames Wood, M.R.c.s.L., dittoJ. R. Mosse, M.R.c.s.E., dittoWilliam Beadon, M.R.c.s.L., dittoF. H. Woodforde, M.D., M.R.C.S.L.,

dittoHenry Liddon, M.R.C.S.L., dittoFrancis Foster, M.R.C.S E., dittoGeo. Kidgell, M.R.C.S.L., WellingtonW. Collard Pyne, M.R.c.s., ditto

W.C. Pyne,jun., M.R.C.S.,We1Jingt;onS. F. Bridge, M.R c.s., dittoAlbert Langley, :&1. R.C.S., dittoA. E. Webber, M.R.C.S., dittoH. W. Randolph, M.R.C.S.L., Miiirer-ton

J. K. Parkinson, M.R.c.s.L., dittoWm. Trevor, M.R.C.S.L., Dulverton

, A. F. Edwards, M.R.C.S.L., Wivelis-combe

J. V. Norman, M.R.c.s.L., dittoHenry Cotes, M.R.c.s.L , dittoH. L. Nazer, M.R.C.S.L., dittoP. L. Hill, M R.c.s.L., dittoRobert Smith, M.R.C.S.E., Bishop’s

, LydeardAbraham King, BridgewaterRichard Axford, dittoJames Haviland, M.R.C.S.L., ditto

J. Jolliffe, M.R.C.S.L., ChardG. R. Burt, M.R.C.S.L., Ihninster.

THE CAP AND GOWN QUESTION AT UNIVERSITYCOLLEGE.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-May I beg you will allow me to correct a slight errorcontained in a paragraph which appeared in your journal ofSaturday last, relative to the meeting held by the students ofUniversity College, on the cap and gown question. It is statedin that paragraph, that " an unanimous resolution was adopted infavour of wearing an academical costume." Sir, the word " una-nimous" should have been omitted, for there was considerableopposition to that resolution, and at one period of the evening it wasvery much doubted whether or not it would be agreed to; how-ever, eventually it was carried, not unanimously, but by a majorityof about two to one. Knowing how valuably your pages are occu-pied, I should not have troubled you with this statement, did I notthink it due to those gentlemen who supported the amendment Ihad the honour of proposing to the original motion on that occa-sion, and to show that there are many, very many, students in thiscollege, who are not so sanguine as to believe that the mere adop-tion of caps and gowns would either add to its dignity, or in-crease its prosperity.-I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

JAMES TEAGUE.University College, March, 1845.

THE SYDENHAM SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—I consider your review of Mr. Erichsen’s work uponAneurism a most just one: the publication is unquestionably anhonour to its editor, and to the Society from which it emanated.I hope, with you, however, that the approbation thus honestlyawarded to the Council of the Sydenham Society, may not inducethem, for the present, at least, to present us with more works of thecollectanea character. We require (as you observe) standardeditions of the great medical works of antiquity, in order thatthe general practitioners of the kingdom may be afforded theopportunity of perusing them as they issue, at regular intervals,.from the press ; they would thus slowly, but certainly, acquire amass of practical knowledge, and an improved acquaintance withthe dead languages, which would raise them in public opinion,and thus materially aid in destroying the false and unjust dis-tinctions which the Government seem disposed to establishbetween them and the so-called °° pures" of the profession ; toassist in this desirable object, any proposal which will economizetime and facilitate perusal ought to be adopted by the Council.Your suggestion, therefore, of having the text and the translationin " vis-a-vis" pages is an excellent one ; and I sincerely trust itmay be seriously considered, and adopted in future publications.Pray urge it most strenuously upon the Council, for the sake ofthe hard-working general practitioner, whose friend you haveever shown yourself to be, and whom you well know, has littlespare time to refer to dictionaries, or translations, in other books.

I understand, that nearly one-half of the present members ofthe Society do not possess the works issued the first year, but

JAMES TEAGUE.