44

June 23rd. There were present: Sir James Sawyer, Mr.Alfred Stanley, Dr. T. W. Brown, Dr. Parkes, Mr. Thomas Salt, Mr. Henton White, Dr. Maclean, Dr. Gibbs Blake, Dr. Parsey, Dr. Thomas Wilson, Mr. Garvey, Dr. Kauffmann,Dr. Carter, Dr. Adamson, Dr. Kirby, Dr. De Blaquiere, Dr.Dain, Dr. Leslie Phillips, Dr. Powell, Dr. Sturge, Dr. Huxley, Dr. Walter R. Jordan, Mr. Clark, Dr. Herbert Perry, Dr. Melson, Dr. Short, Dr. James W. Russell, Dr. Lewis,Dr. Lamb, Dr. Warden, Dr. Foxwell, Dr. Branson, Dr.Suckling, Dr. Nelson, Dr. McCardie, Dr. Line, Dr. Drury,Dr. Martin Young. Mr. Donovan, Dr. Foxcroft, Dr.Strathy, Dr. Oswald Lewis, Mr. John Tighe, Mr. Pooler,Mr. Boyton, Mr. Furneaux Jordan, Mr. D. LlewellynThomas, Mr. Thomas Thomson, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Baldwin,Mr. Bennett, Mr. Weeks, Mr. Clarke Haslam, Mr. Blakenev,Mr. Lawrie, Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Gifford,Mr. Pepper, Mr. Leedham-Green, Mr. Priestley Smith, Mr.Griffin, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Round, Mr. Hancock, Mr. BennettMay, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Legge, Mr. Hall, Mr. Downing, Mr.Thompson, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Johnson,Mr. Bygott, Mr. Mann, Mr. Turner, Mr. Elkington, Mr.

Perry, Mr. Yuill, Mr. Murray, Mr. Buckley, Dr. Lydall,Mr. Smallwood Savage, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Sandison Crabbe,Mr. Wright Wilson, Mr. McCall, Dr. Wood White, Mr.Prosser, Mr. Garner, Mr. Newton, Mr. Trout, Dr. Morton,Mr. Gordon, Mr. John W. Taylor, Mr. Gilbert Smith, Dr.Charles MacNaught, Mr. Wykes, Mr. Vokes, Mr. Burges, Mr.Oakes, Mr. Motteram, Mr. Leech, Mr. Eales, Mr. Milligan,Mr. Burton, Mr. Weston, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Shillito, Mr.Marsh, Mr. Whitcombe, Mr. J. James Evans, Mr. Harmar,Dr. Mackay, and Mr. Christopher Martin.

Dr. THOMAS WILSON announced the unavoidable absenceof Dr. Saundby through illness.

It was proposed by Mr. BARLING, seconded by Dr. CARTER,and resolved that Mr. Priestley Smith should take thechair and the proceedings were opened by an explanation ofthe reasons which had made it necessary to summon themeeting. Dr. THOMAS WILSON then read the notes of theconference which had taken place between himself, Dr.

Saundby, Mr. Priestley Smith, and six delegates of theHospital Saturday Fund Executive held under the presidencyof the Lord Mayor on June 12th. These notes and thesubsequent correspondence between the Lord Mayor andDr. Saundby having been read the CHAIRMAN proposed thefollowing motion:

That this meeting of registered medical practitioners residing in ornear Birmingham objects to the proposed Consulting Institution on thefollowing grounds : 1. That it is proposed that non-medical employersshall exploit the services of medical men ; in other words shall employmedical men to earn fees, pay them by salary, and deal with theproceeds at their own pleasure. 2. That no restriction is proposedas to the class of persons to be received as patients, so thatpersons well able to afford the usual consultation fees wouldobtain a concession to which they have no claim. 3. Thatit is proposed to incorporate the institution as a limited companyto carry on the business of physicians and surgeons and thatthis is contrary to the Bill which has passed the House of Lordsentitled "An Act to amend the Companies Acts," which has receivedthe support of the General Medical Council and the British MedicalAssociation. 4. That such an institution would assuredly seek toprocure patients by advertising and canvassing in contravention of pro-fessional rules and any practitioner holding service in it would renderhimself liable to the censure of the General Medical Council.

This was seconded by Dr. CARTER, Clause 3 beingaltered to read " the Bill which is now before the House ofLords " instead of the Bill which has passed the House ofLords."Upon the motion of Dr. KAUFFMANN, seconded by Dr.

MELSON, Clause 4 was altered to read :That in the event of the proposed institution seeking to procure

patients by advertising and canvassing in contravention of professionalrules any practitioner holding service in it would render himself liableto the censure of the General Medical Council.

The resolution as amended was then put to the meeting andcarried unanimously.The CHAIRMAN then moved :That this meeting records its opinion that no registered medical

practitioner should take office in an institution open to theseobjections.This motion was seconded by Mr. BARLING, supported

by Sir JAMES SAWYER, Mr. OAKES, and Mr. FURNEAUXJORDAN and was carried unanimously.

Mr. BARLIXG asked the chairman to explain to the meet-ing what the position was of those who had representedthe profession in the conference with the Hospital SaturdayFund delegates upon the matter of the question raised by thethird resolution 2

The CHAIRMAN replied that the representatives had givenno pledges and that the meeting was free to deal with thisquestion as it pleased.The CHAIRMAN then moved :

That this meeting approves of the proposal submitted to the execu-tive of the Hospital Saturday Fund on behalf of the profession-viz.,that many of the consultants should agree to see Hospital Saturdaypatients for the reduced fee of half a guinea, provided that arrange-ments can be made for preventing abuse of this privilege.

This was seconded by Mr. BARLING.The previous question was moved by Sir JAMES SAWYER,

seconded by Mr. MORRISON, and carried by a large majority,70 hands being held up for it and 15 against.

After some further discussion it was decided by show ofhands to continue the discussion of the general principlesunderlying the third resolution. After remarks had beenmade by Mr. NEWTON, Mr. WHITCOMBE, Mr. MORRISON, Dr.ADAMSON, Dr. KAUFFMANN, Dr. MELSON, Dr. CARTER, andMr. RICKARDS the following motion was proposed by theCHAIRMAN :

That this meeting desires to remind the promoters of the scheme inquestion that many of the recognised consultants of Birmingham arein the habit of charging a reduced fee to those who satisfy them thatthe usual fee is beyond their means.

This was seconded by Mr. BARLING and carried nem. con.,75 hands being held up in its favour.The meeting terminated with a vote of thanks to the

chairman.

ANNUAL DINNER OF THE ASSOCIATIONOF BRITISH POSTAL MEDICAL

OFFICERS.

THE annual dinner of this association was held at theWhitehall Rooms of the Hòtel Metropole, London, on

June 22nd, when Dr. WILLIAM DOUGAN of Glasgow pre-sided. There was a large attendance of members of theassociation and guests and a very pleasant evening wasspent,

After the loyal toasts had been honoured, that of " TheNavy, Army, and Reserve Forces" was proposed byDr. ARNISON and responded to by Lieutenant-ColonelRAYMENT who remarked that while we admired the braveryof our soldiers we must not forget the great zeal of our

medical officers in the field who added incomparable zeal tomarvellous skill in the performance of their duties during acampaign. The numerous Victoria Crosses awarded to themembers of the Medical Services during recent years testifiedto the courage which they had always shown on the battle-field."The Houses of Parliament" was proposed by Mr. NOBLE

SMITH.Sir WALTER FOSTER, M.P., in replying, said that the rela-

tion of the House of Commons to the medical profession wasa difficult question. There were in the House of Commons acertain number of people anxious to promote the interests ofthe medical profession. If the medical profession combinedit would have as much influence over Parliament as otherbodies who were less educated and less numerous thanthe medical profession. The medical profession shouldcombine, irrespectively of politics, in order to force what-ever party might be in power to legislate for the generalinterests of the community. A distinguished friend of hishad suggested the appropriateness of a quotation from HolyScripture. In Chronicles it was recorded that Asa trustednot in the Lord, but in the physician, and in the next verseit was recorded that Asa slept with his fathers. Thatseemed to be still the popular opinion concerning the pro-fession. It was high time that that idea was eradicated andhe was sure that if the profession were united it might correctthat impression. In respect to vaccination he felt sure thatthose who had voted as he had voted on the last measure inParliament respecting vaccination would be justified in

finding that vaccination would increase rather than decreasethroughout the country as a result of the measure. As longas the medical profession maintained the high standardwhich it now associated with itself it would gain the respectof the public. In conclusion he held that the efficiency ofthe Postal Department was in no small measure due to themedical profession.

45

Sir JAMES CRICHTON BROWNE in proposing " The Educa-tion and other State Departments said he had no doubtthat if the muzzling order were enforced strictly throughoutthe country for 12 months it would result in immeasurablebenefit to man and beast and if vaccination were enforcedirrespectively of all conscientious objection it would

emancipate the people from a foul disease and free the

profession from the persecutions and annoyances of a small,ignorant, noisy, self-sufficient section of the public. Hewent on to criticise Sir John Gorst’s observation that if a

parent sent a child to school unfit for instruction eitherbecause he was underfed or because he was fatigued itshould be regarded as a legal offence on the part of the

parent. He (Sir J. Crichton Browne) would rather dependupon the maternal instinct than upon maternal or grandmaternal legislative interference.

Sir GEORGE KEKEWICH, K.C.B., in responding, said thathe was not responsible for Sir John Gorst’s statement in anyway. Sir James Crichton Browne was the first when

payment by results was prevalent in elementary schoolssome years ago to raise his voice against the over-pressure inschools. Over-pressure had after a very hard fight now dis-appeared from the elementary schools. The EducationDepartment was indebted to the medical profession in manyways and he hoped for the welfare of that Department and’for the nation at large that the medical profession, whateverits grievances, would never go on "strike."

41 The Postmaster-General, the Secretary, and other Execu-tive Officers of the Post Office" " was proposed by Sir HUGHGILZEAN REID and acknowledged by Mr. B. N. Thomas, thePostmaster of Nottingham.

"Municipal Institutions" was proposed by ProfessorCORFIELD and replied to by Bailie DicK in a vigorousspeech.The other toasts were the " Medical Press," proposed by

Dr. J. TATHAM and acknowledged by Mr. THOMAS WAKLEY,jun., and Dr. A. S. GUBB " The General Medical Council,"proposed by Professor SIMS WOODHEAD and replied to byDr. GLOVER ; "The Association of British Postal MedicalOfficers." proposed by Sir THOMAS ROE and responded toby the PRESIDENT ; and " The Guests," proposed by Dr.RICHARD PARAMORE and replied to by Mr. W. BRAID, Post-master of Manchester.

Dr. PARAMORE in a brief speech proposed the health ofDr. R. Ritchie Giddings, the honorary general secretary ofthe Association, on whom the labour of the organisationof the dinner had fallen, and congratulated him on thesuccessful results. Dr. GIDDINGS in replying met with amost hearty reception.Mr. Arthur Crudge’s Imperial Orchestra played during the Idinner. ;

THE NEW ROYAL OPHTHALMICHOSPITAL BUILDINGS.

ON Tuesday last, June 27th, the Duke and Duchess of

York opened the new building of the Royal OphthalmicHospital in City-road. Their Royal Highnesses were

received by Sir John Lubbock (president of the hospital), Mr.H. P. Sturgis (chairman of the Committee of Management),and the architects (Messrs. Keith Young and H. Hall).The Duke of York unlocked the door of the main entrance

hall, where the surgeons of the hospital, the matron, and thesecretary were presented to their Royal Highnesses. TheRoyal party were then conducted over the building and ontheir arrival at the dais Miss Evelyn Tweedy presented theDuchess of York with a bouquet. The visitors included theLord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress, Mr. Alderman andSheriff Alliston, Lieutenant-Colonel and Sheriff Probyn, theBishop of Islington, Rev. Prebendary Whittington (chaplain),Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Sir Squire and Lady Bancroft, Mr. J.Lea Smith (trustee), Sir Thomas Lipton, the Chief Rabbi,Mr. H. Davison (chairman of the Building Committee), andMr. A. G. Pollock (chairman of the Special AppealCommittee).

Mr. STURGIS, addressing their Royal Highnesses, said thatthey represented the fourth generation of the Royal familywho had shown interest in the hospital. The Duchess of Kentwas patroness of the hospital ; the Queen was interested inthe institution before she came to the throne ; the Prince

of Wales laid the foundation-stone of the new buildings ;and now their Royal Highnesses had opened them. Thatinstitution was the oldest eye hospital in the worldand, he believed, the largest. It was known to the pro-fession throughout the world and to the poor throughoutEngland, and he wished that the hospital was known as muchto the rich as it was to the poor. The committee hadendeavoured to make the building as perfect as possible andthey would come into it free from debt. The cost of mainten-ance at the old building was about Z8000 a year, and theirregular income, including grants from the three greathospital funds, did not reach the sum of .f.3000 a year, sothat they had to make up the deficit in other ways. The costof maintenance in the new building would be as much as11,000 a year and he hoped that their income would increaseto a corresponding extent. What they wanted was an increasein annual subscriptions; and beyond that they wished toraise a fund of .f.SO,OOO which would be a guarantee for thelarge ground-rent which they now had to pay and for certaininitial expenses.

Sir JOHN LuBBOCK said that they were very much indebtedto Mr. Sturgis and the members of his committee for thecare and attention which they had given to the hospital andthey were also greatly indebted to the medical staff and thematron. This was not only a great hospital but it was amost important school of ophthalmic science, and it had donevery much to promote their knowledge of that importantbranch of surgery.The Duke of YORK said that he was very grateful to

Sir John Lubbock for the kind words which he had usedwith regard to himself and the Duchess and that hewas much interested in all that he had heard fromMr. Sturgis and he thanked all in the Duchess’s nameas well as in his own for the very kind reception whichthey had received. He congratulated the architects onthe excellent result of their labours and the committeeand the medical staff on occupying a new hospital designedand equipped according to the most modern requirements.The cost of maintenance of these new buildings, whichcovered three-quarters of an acre, would be very heavy, buthe was sure the committee deserved the generous support ofthe charitable public to enable them to continue the usefulwork which had been so ably carried out by this hospital fornearly a quarter of a century. He trusted that the publicwould come forward and help the hospital and prevent itfrom getting into debt by their annual subscriptions. At the

present time the attendance at the hospital was about 400daily and the operation for removing cataracts from the eyesof young children, which had saved very many of them frombecoming blind, was originated at the Moorfields Hospital.He declared the new building open and wished the RoyalLondon Ophthalmic Hospital continued prosperity in itsnew building and a long career in its great and importantwork.

Their Royal Highnesses then left the building.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OFLONDON.

AN extraordinary meeting of the Comitia was held onJune 26th, Dr. CHURCH, President, being in the chair.The PRESIDENT announced that Dr. Horton-Smith would

deliver the Goulstonian lectures for 1900, Dr. Cheadle theLumleian lectures for 1901, and Dr. Halliburton the Croonianlectures for 1901.The PRESIDENT also stated that he had sent a con-

gratulatory message to Professor Stokvis on his havingcompleted the twenty-fifth year of his professorship at theUniversity of Amsterdam and a letter of thanks had beenreceived in reply.A report, dated May 8th, was received from the Com-

mittee of Management. The committee recommend that thefollowing institutions be added to the list of those recognisedby the Examining Board in England:-(a) For instruction inChemistry, Physics, and Practical Chemistry: MunicipalTechnical School, Oldham; St. Olave’s Grammar School,Tooley-street, S.E. (b) For instruction in Chemistry, Physics,Practical Chemistry, and Biology: Harrow School. The

report also contained the answers to questions submittedto the College by the Education Committee of the GeneralMedical Council on the subject of the standard of the