631

" I fully believed Mr. Broatch, and, indeed, notwithstandingsubsequent events, I still believe that he did not deceive me. Ihad known Mr. Broatch for thirty years, having repeatedlymet him in practice, and ever found him truthful, honourable,and skilful. I knew that he was met and respected by all thepractitioners of the district of any standing. I knew he was

respected, and bore a high character in his own locality. Iknew he was, and had been, parochial surgeon to two parishesfor many years-an appointment not held by unqualified prac-titioners in this part of the country before the passing of theMedical Act. I had seen his name year after year in the"London Medical Directory"-a work of general accuracy-asa Licentiate of the Edinburgh Royal College of Surgeons, 1822;and I knew, from personal experience, that his story was notimprobable. I had myself lost one of my diplomas for a longtime, and recovered it by the merest chance, and I had expe-rienced the delay and difficulty arising out of an applicationfor a duplicate or certificate, even when my application wassupported by the powerful aid of my late friend, Mr. Liston.According to Mr. Broatch’s statement, it was simply impossiblefor him to comply with the letter of the requirement of the cer-tificate, and yet it appeared that in a few days he must eitherbe registered or professionally outlawed. I did not see Mr.Broatch’s diploma, but I firmly believed in his qualification;and as I regarded the certificate as intended to supply whatthe Act calls proper evidence that the person claiming regis-tration is entitled to it,’ I signed it, professional outlawry beingthe result in a few days if I had not. I do not seek to justifymyself for so doing. It was incautious-an act of the feelingsunsanctioned by the judgment and the dictates of self-interest,and I am very willing, and do express my regret. The circum-stances you will be able to estimate as strongly as I can." I do not wish now to discuss the question of Mr. Broatch’s

trial. I may only say, that so far from any desire on my partto defeat or assist in defeating the provisions of the Act, I im-mediately replied to the inquiries of the Registrar of the Scot-tish (Branch) Council, in perfect frankness, and had also toperform the painful duty of giving my evidence against Mr.Broatch, without which, by the way, he could not have beenconvicted at all." Such are very briefly the facts of the matter referred to in

the minute published in the Edinburgh Journal." Of the publication of that minute, in so far as it refers to

me, I say nothing further than to remark that the Medical Actdoes not contemplate or authorize such a publication. Thestatus and character of a medical man should not be injuredwantonly, and it certainly was not intended that ex parte accu-sations should be circulated in the public journals under theshield of a minute of the (Branch) Medical Council, more espe-cially before the said Council, by their own showing, knewwhether they were entitled to entertain the subject or not ;but, as I said before, I do not wish to trouble you with per-sonal grievances or discussion.

"I have been anxious to state to you the circumstancesunder which I acted; having committed an error, I have de-sired to express regret. I feel sure you will pardon my intru-sion in such a matter, and beg leave to subscribe myself,

"Your most obedient servant,"JAMES MURRAY MCCULLOCH.

To Sir Benjamin C. Brodie, Bart., 14, Savile-row, London, W."

5. The following resolution was unanimously adopted by theCouncil, on the motion of Mr. Green, seconded by Dr. AndrewWood,-" Having just learned that during this day’s sitting,Dr. Williams, the representative of the Royal College of Sur-geons of Ireland, has died, under the unprecedented andafflicting circumstance, the Council record the unfeigned sorrowwhich they feel under the irreparable loss of a colleague soestimable and distinguished."

Confirmed-B. C. BRODIE.

Correspondence."Audi alteram partem."

REGISTRATION OF DEATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.Tn t7te Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-I have lately been in communication with the GlasgowFaculty of Medicine, through which body I have been informedof an important movement now progressing in Scotland, andaffecting the interests of the profession in that country.

A Bill is now under the consideration of the House of Com-mons to amend the Act 17 and 18 Vict., intituled "An Act toProvide for the Better Registration of Births, Deaths, andMarriages in Scotland," under the 41st section of which statutemedical practitioners are compelled to render important ser-vices to the State without remuneration, and for non-obedienceof the harsh enactment are liable to serious penalties. Theoffensive clause is, that "the medical person who shall havebeen in attendance during the last illness and until the deathof any person shall, within fourteen days after the death ofsuch person, and under a penalty not exceeding 40s. in case offailure, transmit to the registrar a certificate of such death inthe form" given.The corporation which I have named have energetically op-

posed the arbitrary law, feeling that all attempts to coerce, byAct of Parliament or otherwise, scientific or professional mento give gratuitously the results of thoir labours for the benefitof society are unjust in principle, baneful to the interests ofscience, and can end only in failing to effect the object forwhich they are ostensibly intended.

It has been suggested to me that the medical gentlemen ofEngland might materially assist their neighbours by subscribinga petition to the House of Commons, praying that the clausequoted be expunged. The Glasgow Faculty of Medicine willgive a form of petition, or any gentleman interested in thematter might draw one from the above statement of facts, andsubmit it for presentation to the member for his place. Per-haps before this letter is published the Bill now before theHouse may be read, and so the opportunity may be lost. How-ever, the eventilation of our neighbours’ complaint will do norharm, and may assist to stir a little sympathy, and excite co-operation and cordial understanding, which can bring about.only good to the fraternity of doctors.

I am, Sir, yours most obediently,Charles-square, June, 1860. EDWARD J. WOOD.EDWARD J. WOOD.

FRENCH HOSPITAL STUDY.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-The interesting remarks of your Parisian correspon-dent, on the subject of French Hospital Study, deserve thebest attention of all who propose taking a " finisher" abroad.The advantages of a residence at any of the great continentalschools are so often marred by inexperience and want of duearrangement of time, that the student not unfrequently findsthe true benefit of his stay to coincide pretty exactly with theconclusion of his visit. Following, then, in the footsteps of"our own correspondent," permit another " old hand" to adda few notes to what has been already so well begun.

In the first place, let me caution the student against at-tempting too much. In Paris the facilities for improvementare so extensive that it is, perhaps, a little puzzling sometimesto know what to select; but, doubtless, after a day or twowith each of its principal professors, it will not be difficult foreach man to select the teacher must after his own heart. If,however, instead of doing this, he has a different hospital forevery day in the week, and a constant change of lectures andclinical demonstrations, he will conclude his season with thereflection that he has frittered away his time and secured forhis trouble nothing better than dim recollections and half-digested facts.The hospitals in Paris which are above all others deserving

of his attention, are those devoted to affections of specialorgans-as diseases of the skin, venereal complaints, and chil-dren’s disorders, can there be studied on a vast and unrivalledscale. But the value of such study is very much enhanced bythe cours pctrticulÙrs, conducted by the " internes," at ratesvarying from thirty to fifty francs per month. By means ofthese excellent private classes, the student is afforded the bestopportunity of thoroughly examining each variety of the dis-ease ; its leading features are pointed out and explained, and,in course of time, he is himself compelled to deliver his dia-gnosis on every case. Let him not, then, neglect to attendone or more of such courses, for, in addition to their profes-sional value, the advantages in the way of French conversationwhich they afford are by no means to be despised.Of course, on first arriving in Paris, a good deal of hospital

attendance is lost from the difficulty that every fresh ear ex-periences in understanding French. But let him not despair;let him work away bravely, casting aside all English books,and taking every opportunity of familiarizing his ear with theunwonted sounds by a steady attendance upon the lectures ofthe Faculty of Medicine. And he will find that, by boarding

632

in an English family, his ear is apt to lose ground, and, by hear-ing much of the old familiar language, to fall back in its ap-preciation of the peculiar French twang. When to this I addthat the regular hours for meals will often prove very incon-venient, by breaking in upon hours of study, and that theopportunity of seeing character which café" and restaurantsso well afford will thus be lost, no one will be inclined to.doubt that lodging is best adapted for Paris lifp.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,June, 1860.

_____________

INVESTIGATOR.

Parliamentary Intelligence.HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, JUNE 15TH.

THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.

COLONEL LiNDSAY rose to move that a humble address shouldbe presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be gra-ciously pleased to reconsider the llth Clause of the Army Me-dical Warrant of October, 1858, as fer as relates to its retro-spective application to the medical officers at that time servingin the ranks affected, having due regard to the efficiency of thepublic service. The hon. and gallant gentleman said that theclause of the Warrant to which he objected provided that me.dical officers of the rank of surgeon-majors, surgeons, and assis-tant-surgeons should be placed upon the retired list when theyhad attained the age of fifty-five, and inspectors-general anddeputy inspectors-general when they had attained the age ofsixty-five years. He did not mean to attack the system of com-pulsory retirement generally; on the contrary, he believed thatin future it would be of advantage to the medical profession.What he complained of was its retrospective application tothose serving in the ranks affected at the date of the Warrant.The junior ranks would derive advantage from it, but theywould obtain that advantage at the expense of their seniors.He admitted that the public good must be paramount to exist-ing interests, but those interests ought to be respected wherethey did not clash with the public good. That principle wasrecognised in the reports of the commissioners upon promotionsin the army, both in 1854 and 1858. The commission upon thesanitary state of the army, upon the report of which this War-rant was founded, did not express quite the same views. In

recommending the alterations which they proposed, they said,66 It is true that all general rules must occasionally press hardupon individuals; at the same time, they inflict no individualinjuries, though they may produce individual hardships, for allare aware of the existence of the rule and the effect it mayhave." His case was that when these officers came into theservice the rule which was proposed to be applied to themunder this Warrant did not exist, and therefore they couldhave no knowledge of its effects. One gentleman, he believedit was Dr. Lucas, knew nothing about his removal from theservice until he saw it announced in the Gazette. He wouldmention the cases of two or three officers who had sufferedfrom the eleventh clause of this Warrant. An officer, whohad been thirty years in the service, of which he had spenttwenty-one years abroad, and thus lost his promotion to therank of deputy inspector of hospitals, had been compelled toretire at the age of fifty-five, when in the full vigour of life andactive in the discharge of his duties. In another case, anofficer who was first on the list for promotion when the War-rant came out, and had actually been promised his step, wasdeprived of his prospects by the new Warrant. Dr. Suther-land had declared to several medical officers that if he had anyidea of the amount of injury entailed by the retrospectiveaction of the Warrant he would never have consented to it.These officers, if they were forced to retire, ought to be wellcompensated, as, by quitting the service, they forfeited thehigh pay and allowances to the enjoyment of which they hada right under a former Warrant speedily to look forward. Theadditional compensation which a retired staff officer of the first-class was to receive amounted only to ls. 6d. a day, whereasin the proposals just circulated by the Admiralty for the com-pulsory retirement of naval officer.3 at the age of sixty thescale was much more liberal. It was there proposed that navalofficers who would have been in receipt of I os. 6. a day shouldhave their half-pay increased to 18s., and those whose positionentitled them to 12s. 6d., would receive 20<. Some relief, hemaintained, ought to be granted to the medical officers in the.army from the arbitrary operation of this Warrant, and, if not

restored to their position and prospects, they ought at least toreceive the retiring allowance of the rank immediately abovetheir own.Mr. S. HERBERT regretted very much that he could not

accept the view taken by the hon. and gallant member on thisquestion. There was this broad distinction between the ranksof surgeon and surgeon-major and those of inspector and deputy- &middot;

inspector-general, that the duties of the first were executive,while those of the latter were merely administrative; theyneither practised nor operated. Both of the late Directors-General were anxious that compulsory retirement should takeplace in the higher ranks at the age of sixty-five, and in thelower at fifty-five, and believed that it would be attendedwith benefit to the profession. Retirement at a certain fixedperiod was less disadvantageous to medical officers than wasgenerally supposed, as they set up in practice in civil life asconsulting practitioners, and obtained a fair amount of prao.tice. The medical officers themselves had always urged thatthey ought to be permitted to retire at fifty, which was someyears earlier than the date iixed for their compulsory retire.ment. It was quite true that the retrospective effect of theWarrant must be felt by men already in the service, but other-wise they would have to confine the operation of a measurewhich was admittedly beneficial to those who were only enter-ing the army. If, however, medical officers were to have theprivilege of saying that they were prepared to accept the greatadvantages which were conferred upon them in the shape ofincreased pay as well as in rank, but that to any regulationoperating in any degree to what they might consider their dis-advantage they would not submit, and if such representationswere to be yielded to, and no general rule laid down, inextri-cable confusion would be the result. The hon. and gallantgentleman had referred to individual instances of hardship,but that he did not think was the best way to come to a fairconclusion on the subject; and it should be borne in mind thatthere were several very excellent appointments which wereplaced at the disposal of those officers who were affected by theWarrant of 1858. There were, for instance, medical officerswho were obliged to retire appointed to the College at Sand-hurst, the Asylum at Chelsea, the Hibernian School, and alsoat Enfield. In conclusion, he had only to say that, if everymotion of a nature similar to that which the hon. and gallantgentleman had made were assented to, he doubted whether.640,000 or .650,000 a year would meet the consequent expendi-ture. He was most anxious to do everything he possibly couldin the matter, and the best course to pursue would, he thought,be to give the officers in question priority in claim to the dif-ferent situations which might become vacant, and which theycould fill. (Hear.)

Colonel DiCKSOx expressed his entire concurrence in whathad fallen from the hon. and gallant member behind him withreference to those officers whose case he had brought beforethe House. In dealing with such cases, expense in his opinionought never to be allowed to outweigh the claims of justice.The motion was then withdrawn.

MONDAY, JUNE 18TH.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES.

Lord EAYNHAM asked whether regulations could be madefor enforcing the detention at the hospitals of carriages usedfor the conveyance thither of persons suffering from infectiousdiseases until proper certificates had been given of their havingundergone sufficient purification 1

Sir G. (J. LEWIS said that by the existing Police Acts therewas no such power, and therefore it was impossible that suchdirections could be given without further legislation by theHouse. The subject, however, had not escaped the attentionof the police, so far as the present powers extended. Therehad been provided a carriage for the conveyance of infectiouscases; for instance, for the removal of any policeman afflictedwith infectious disease, or any prisoner, or any person infectedin a similar manner who might be in a lodging-house and sub-ject to the control of the police. Anyone in parochial autho-

rity, or having any special interest in it, who might desire tosee the carriages which were being provided by the police, mightreceive admission upon application being made to Sir RichardMayne.

THE CANCER PoisoN.-Dr. Lemarchand, formerly anaval surgeon, has just died at Landerneau, (Department ofFinistere, France,) at the age of fifty-eight, in consequence ofa puncture with a suture needle, which had lain some time in awound made for the removal of a cancerous tumour.