419

GENERAL COUNCIL

OF

MEDICAL EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION.

Session 1865.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.

SATURDAY, APRIL 8TH.

THE minutes of the previous meeting were read and con-firmed.The case and opinion of counsel (Mr. Hobhouse) relative to

voting in the Council were read.Dr. ANDREW WOOD said that Mr. Hobhouse’s opinion was

very much of the same character as the old oracle," Aio te, Eacida, Romanos vincere posse."

It did not commend itself to their common sense, and he sug-gested that another opinion should be taken.The PRESIDENT said he was certainly left as much in the

dark as before as to whether he was compelled to give a castingvote. In the event of an equality of votes he should certainlyfeel inclined to follow the practice of the Speaker of the Houseof Commons, believing that no great question ought to be car-ried by a casting vote. He would rather vote against his ownviews than carry a great measure by his single vote.

Dr. CORRIGAN called attention to Section 9 of the MedicalAct : "All acts of the General Council shall be decided by thevotes of the majority of the members present at any meeting,the whole number present not being less than eight; and at allsuch meetings the president for the time being shall, in addi-tion to his vote as a member of the Council, have a casting votein case of an equality of votes." Let them be guided strictlyby the language of the Legislature, and they might throw Mr.Hobhouse’s opinion into the fire.The subject then dropped.

THE DUBLIN APOTHECARIES’ COMPANY.

Dr. STOKES moved,-" That with reference to the resolutionof this Council on the motion by Dr. Leet, June 2nd, 1863-viz., That this Council is of opinion that registered licen-tiates of the Apothecaries’ Company of Dublin are, as apo-thecaries, entitled to practise medicine in Great Britain andIreland,’-the Council resolve that it did not desire to conveythat the licence of the Apothecaries’ Company of Ireland car-ried any other qualification than that specified in the Act ofIncorporation of the Company." Having alluded to the coursepursued by the Council at previous meetings in reference to thissubject, Dr. Stokes said his object was not to ask the Councilto rescind the resolution passed in 1863, but simply to explainit, as, owing to the ambiguity of some of its expressions, an un-worthy use had been made of it. It was obvious that theMedical Act conferred no new powers upon any licensing body,:and took none away. The certificates of the Apothecaries’Company declared their holders to have been examined in theprinciples and practice of medicine and pharmacy, and to be-properly qualified to practise the profession of apothecary, andin the last programme issued by that body it was stated that"’ the licence of the Apothecaries’ Hall entitles its possessor topractise medicine and pharmacy in all parts of Her Majesty’sdominions, and is recognised as a full qualification in medicinefor appointments in the Medical Departments of the Army andof the Poor-law Board." In the English Apothecaries’ Act theCompany was required to examine all persons applying to it"for the purpose of ascertaining the skill and ability of suchpersons in the science and practice of medicine, and their fit-ness to practise as apothecary." In the Irish Act nothing ofthe sort was to be found. The only certificate mentioned inthe Act was an authority " to practise the art of an apothe-cary." In the same Act it was declared that no apothecaryshould receive any apprentice under a term of seven years, andthe apothecaries took an oath to obey that regulation; but cer-tificates in medicine were now given to persons who had notbeen apprenticed for the prescribed period. By the presentmethod a man might, after three or four years, get a diplomaas a surgeon, and then get a licence from the Apothecaries’Hall, which, according to the programme, was a complete qua-lification in medicine. That qualification was pressed upon the

Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland, who for some time resistedthe pressure, and obtained a legal opinion from the Attorney-General and Solicitor-Generalof Ireland, who stated : "We thinkthat the Apothecaries’ Hall, Dublin, has no power to grant adiploma or a licence in medicine." This, however, did not stopthe Commissioners, and they made a very curious order-that everyone entering the Poor-law service " shall have a de-gree or a licence in medicine, or be a licentiate of Apothecaries’Hall." The qualification was also recognised in the army andnavy. Ought they then, as a Council of Education, to allow aresolution passed by them to be made use of in that way? Itwas their duty to explain what they meant by that resolution.They were called the administrators of a very important Actof Parliament, and they should administer it without fear orfavour. It was a matter of great importance not only to Ire-land, but to England, and to the army and navy.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD seconded the motion., Dr. LEET said, as the framer of the resolution of which anexplanation was now sought, he felt bound to oppose the motionproposed by Dr. Stokes. The motion, he contended, was con-trary to the express terms of the resolution, and, if adopted,would compromise the honour of the Council. The whole mat-ter had been fully discussed already, and ought not to be re-opened. In framing the resolution he had the assistance ofthe late president and of a university member. He had himselfdrawn out a somewhat different form of resolution, but hemodified it at the suggestion of the president. With regard tothe alleged invasion of the rule of apprenticeship, the Apothe-caries’ Company had acted under the best advice. They hadbeen advised that they could be obliged to admit any gentle-man educated as a physician on presenting his educationalqualification. He could not understand how gentlemen couldignore the education received by practitioners in other schoolsand hospitals-an education of the same character as that re-ceived by their own students. It had been admitted that themajority of the Irish public were dependent upon the apothe-caries, and deservedly so. They often received applicationsfrom persons who presented their qualifications obtained at theuniversities, and from surgeons desiring a medical licence. Theopinion of the Attorney-General of England had been given, tothe effect that he had no doubt the Apothecaries’ Company ofIreland was legally qualified to grant licences to practise medi-cine ; and, after referring to the provisions of the Act, headded : " These provisions entirely supersede the necessity ofany inquiry into the constitution or rights of the Apothecaries’Company in Dublin or its licentiates ; for they (the licentiates)are by Section 15 expressly entitled to be registered on pro-ducing certificates of the Apothecaries’ Hall, which are the sta-tutory qualifications for registration as medical practitioners."The question had been asked of the Council whether the licen-tiates of Apothecaries’ Hall of Ireland were legally qualified topractise medicine in Ireland, and in reply the Council hadpassed the resolution which had been read. That resolutionhad given security to the College of Physicians in Ireland.When it was urged that it was a very inferior qualification, itwas pointed out that the qualification was only to practisemedicine as an apothecary, not as a physician. He thoughtthat no appeal should be made to the Council in the matter,and that if gentlemen desired to take any steps they shouldproceed against the Company by mandamus in a court of law,instead of wasting the time of the Council on an affair of cor-porate jealousy. (" No, no," and "Yes, yes.") In January,1864, a letter was received from the War Office stating thatEarl de Grey considered the opinion of the General Council,that registered licentiates of the Apothecaries’ Company wereentitled to practise in Great Britain and Ireland, was sufficientto warrant their being accepted as candidates for the armymedical service. In a subsequent letter the Company was in-formed that, with a view of removing misconception, whileits licence would be received as a qualification in medicine,candidates must also possess a qualification in surgery. ThePoor-law Commissioners had also, in Dec. 1864, made an orderto the effect that licentiates of the Apothecaries’ Hall might beappointed to any union in Ireland if they also possessed quali-fications in surgery and midwifery. A case had occurred atthe late Cork Assizes before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, in whichthe right of apothecaries to receive fees at coroners’ inquestswas called in question, and the learned judge expressed hisopinion that they were so entitled as legally qualified medicalpractitioners. Unless the motion was withdrawn, he shouldfeel it his duty to move an amendment.Mr. SYME said that the Council had given great attention

to the subject for several years past, and had arrived at a de-cision. Dr. Stokes now wished to do away with the effect of

420

the resolution passed by the Council. Li the Apothecaries’ BCompany had issued licences illegally, the subject ought to be Ireferred to the Privy Council. it had been said. that the apo-thecaries of Dublin were a low contemptible set of persons;that they were only a joint-stock company, and not deservingof consideration. If they were so, whose fault was it ? Theywere expressly mentioned in the schedule, and must of coursebe treated as such. He could see no reason in the argumentof Dr. Stokes for making any alteration in the resolution, andbegged to move " That the Council do not see any reason forentering into an explanation of their resolution respecting thelicences of the Apothecaries’ Company of Dublin."

Dr. ANDREW WOOD said this question was not so simple asMr. Syme appeared to think it. It was iot a question whetherthe Dublin apothecaries were a duly qualified body capable ofpractising medicine; it was a question whether the Councilwas entitled to grant a charter in medicine. When the questionwas first brought before the Council, it decided that it was nopart of its duty to give a legal opinion whether the apothe-caries of Dublin were qualitied to practise medicine or not.They did the same thing three times, and it was only by theimportunity of Dr. Leet that the Council were driven fromthat opposition and adopted an illegal course. When an ap-plication was made to them by the secretary of the Poor-lawBoard respecting the qualification conferred by the licence ofthe Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, the Coun-cil very properly expressed no opinion on the matter, directingthe registrar to intimate that a question involving the legalinterpretation of the charter was one which the Council wasnot competent to answer. If the Council was not competentto answer that question in the case of the Faculty of Physiciansand Surgeons of Glasgow, how could it answer a similar ques-tion with respect to the Dublin Apothecaries’ Company ? The

Company had no right to come to the Council and ask it toconfer a charter upon them. The result of the resolution ofthe Council had been, that the Apothecaries’ Company issuedcertificates or diplomas giving the qualification to practisemedicine and the consequent privileges. He protested againstthe Council being led into such an illegal and improper course,and hoped it would not form a precedent for any future action.He was not jealous of the apothecaries of Dublin, but he wasjealous of the Council going out of its way, and, instead ofadministering the Medical Act, taking upon itself to decidequestions as to the value of charters conferred upon differentbodies.

Dr. STORRAR seconded the amendment of Mr. Syme.Dr. CORRIGAN said he should cordially vote for the amend-

ment but for the fact that the resolution passed by the Councilhad been misunderstood by the Poor-law Commissioners andother persons, and it was their duty therefore to explain theirreal meaning. Before the passing of the resolution, the Poor-law Commissioners required that an officer placed over a largehospital should have the higher qualification usually possessed i

by the officers of other hospitals and dispensaries in Ireland;but after the resolution was passed, the Commissioners issuedan order that their medical officers should either have a degreein medicine from a university or a license from the College ofPhysicians, " or be a licentiate of the Apothecaries’ Hall,Dublin." Was that the meaning the Council intended to con-vey by its resolution-that the qualifications lie had mentionedwere convertible ? No one would stand up and say that sucha meaning was intended to be conveyed. If, then, they hadbeen misunderstood, some explanation should be given. He be-lieved, however, that the Poor-law Commissioners were somewhatashamed of their order, for they did what he had never knownthem do before-issued a circular explaining their reasons formaking the order in question. In that circular they statedthat it had been represented that the Medical Council was ofopinion that the licentiates of the Apothecaries’ Company ofIreland were entitled to practise in all parts of her Majesty’sdominions, and that in accordance with that opinion the Secre-tary for War had accepted the licences of that body. If the

resolution, then, had been so far misunderstood by the Secre-tary of State for War, and by the Poor-law Commissioners, asthat they received a certificate from a trading company asequivalent to a degree from a university, ought they, or oughtthey not, to give some explanation? The Secretary of Statefor War, however, stated that one of his reasons for admittingthe licentiates of the Apothecaries’ Company was, that therewas a competitive examination in the army, which renderedthe qualifications possessed by candidates of less consequencethan they otherwise would be. But the Poor-law Commis-sioners were utterly ignorant of that reason, and they hadevidently been misled. In competing for army medical ap-

pointments men underwent an examination in professionalknowledge, but in competing for the Poor-law appointmentsthey were only examined in politics and sectarianism (laughter).The position of an apothecary was very much that of an officierde santé in France. He had to attend at the hospital a certainnumber of years, and to be examined by professors appointedfor the purpose and by a competent person in pharmacy.Having received his certificate, he was entitled to practisemedicine, surgery, and pharmacy, in the department in whichhe was licensed. He could not, however, take charge of a

public institution, nor perform a capital operation without thepresence of a member of the College of Surgeons. He (Dr.Corrigan) believed that the apothecaries of Ireland were mostuseful to the public and most trusted by them; but that wasno reason why they should seek to occupy the position of fullyqualified physicians and surgeons. To give them that positionwould be like placing the officier de santé in the same categoryas the docteur en médecine et chirurgie. To be consistent, therewas another licentiate to whom the Council ought to apply a.similar resolution-namely, the licentiate in midwifery. If thequestion came before the Council whether such a licentiati--was qualified to practise medicine or not, it might pass a reso-lution that he was qualified to practise medicine " as a licen-tiate in midwifery;" but supposing such a resolution to bemisunderstood, and some public body passed an order to. theeffect that they would accept as a qualification a degree inmedicine " or a licence in midwifery," would not the Councilthink it necessary to explain that it did not mean to say thatthat licence was to be taken as equivalent to a qualification as.a physician and surgeon ? If the explanation would be required;in the one case, it was equally so in the other. Before the-passing of the Poor-law Act any man could be appointed bythe grand jury to be an officer of a dispensary. The Act ofParliament, however, gave the Poor-law Commissioners fullpower to determine what qualifications should be required.The Commissioners accordingly issued an order that thence-forth surgeons only should be appointed. He believed that a,number of pure surgeons then presented themselves who knewnothing about midwifery, after which an order was issued thata certificate in midwifery should be necessary. The discoverywas then made that the pure surgeons knew nothing aboutmedicine.Mr. HARGRAVE.—I deny that most emphatically. The

Commissioners never said such a thing. (Laughter.) I willnot submit to having my body maligned. (Hear, hear, andlaughter.)

Dr. CORRIGAN.—They stated that the diploma of a surgeon.was not sufficient to ensure a proper discharge of the duties ofmedical officers placed in charge of dispensaries, and theypassed an order to the effect that, in addition to the diplomain surgery and midwifery, the medical officers of dispensaries.should possess diplomas in medicine. No mandamus couldissue against the Poor-law Commissioners, because the Act ofParliament gave them a most extraordinary power, and didnot limit them to any qualifications for Poor-law appointments.They might issue an order that the certificate of the Apothe-caries’ Hall, Dublin, was sufficient to ensure the discharge of allthe duties under the Poor Law, and no mandamus would lieagainst them, as full powers were given them under the Act.,Dr. Leet had referred to the communication from the Collegeof Physicians recognising the apothecaries as practitioners inmedicine. No doubt the College of Physicians did admit theirright to practise, but they did not intend it to be understoodthat they regarded the certificate of the Apothecaries’ Companyas equivalent to a degree in medicine. The course at presentadopted, he maintained, had the effect of overriding Sect. 14of 55 Geo. III., which was an Act for better Regulating thePractice of Apothecaries. With that Act of Parliamentstaring them in the face, the Council had virtually declared:that the apothecary in Ireland was entitled to practise in,England. It had been said that the resolution was inconszs- --

tent, and was a rescindment. It was not the rescinding of aresolution, but an explanation. It had also been said that theresolution had not been rightly interpreted. He quite agreed’with that, and only asked that a right interpretation might begiven. Something had been said about the honour of theCouncil. He did not exactly know what the honour of the-Council had to do with it, but Dr. Leet had taken up thesupposition that the honour of the Council was involved. He,would ask them to judge for themselves of the competency ofthe Board of Examiners of the Apothecaries’ Hall when hetold them that the only passage to the office of examiner wasthrough the possession of a share. Those shares were sixty innumber originally, of the value of £100 each. Being a good

421

speculation they had been bought in, and were now in the pos-session of forty-seven persons, some of whom were minors,sone barristers, and some persons living abroad, so that out ofthe whole there were but twenty-nine apothecaries in Dublinor its neighbourhood holding shares. Those examiners couldnot lepute their duty to others, and the most ignorant manthat ever dissolved an ounce of salts might be an examiner inthe highest branches of medicine simply because he went intothe market and bought a share. He had trespassed upon theirtime, but as Dr. Leet had appealed to the honour of the- Council for their decision, he (Dr. Corrigan) appealed to theirhonour as men who were in charge of the poor, to knowwhether they would let the resolution go forth as it stood, or,if it had been misinterpreted, as he hoped he had shown it hadbeen, would simply give it an interpretation, without sayingone word to disparage the Society of Apothecaries, for whom,individually, he had the greatest respect, and some of whomwere among his dearest personal friends.

Dr. EMBLETON’ said this was a matter of considerable im-

portance, and ought to be thoroughly ventilated. His opinionwas that Dr. Stokes’s motion had better be referred to theCommittee on the Amendments of the Medical Acts, becausethe result inferred an alteration in those Acts. The discussion.as to the constitution of the Dublin Apothecaries’ Company,the regulations which it had issued from time to time, and itsdiplomas, did not seem to him to touch the heart of the ques-tion. He believed Dr. Leet had made out a very excellentcase for his body, and he had fortified the case by reference tothe most favourable legal and judicial opinions. The Councilwould be greatly wanting in its duty if it did not recogniselicentiates of the Apothecaries’ Hall of Dublin as legally- qualified practitioners.Dr. STORRAR said the title of the Medical Act was "an Actto regulate the Qualifications of Practitioners in Medicine andSurgery," and if the licentiates of the Apothecaries’ Hall ofDublin were not practitioners in either medicine or surgery,how in the name of fortune did the Society come to find aplace in the Act at all ? Clause 31 said, " Every person regis-tered under this Act shall be entitled, according to his quali-fication or qualifications, to practise medicine or surgery, ormedicine and surgery." Dr. Corrigan had been very sedulous,in his attempts to amend the Medical Acts, to introduce theword’" pharmacy ;" but he (Dr. Storrar) submitted that theirduty was to abide by the Act of Aug. 1858. A very long dis-cussion arose on the subject in 1863, and Dr. Leet was thenamply furnished with some of the old Acts of Parliament ofthe Apothecaries’ Society of London, which established thefact that that Society consisted of persons practising medicine.That evidence was so conclusive that he would have been con-tent to take it if the Act of Parliament had not been in ex-istence. Dr. Corrigan had alluded to Section 55. What wasit introduced for, if not to show that the Apothecaries’ Societyof Ireland had a twofold privilege, the one as distinct from theas was conceivable-the one to practise medicine, the other topractise as apothecaries ? This was the first time that a charterhad been supposed to override an Act of Parliament. Dr. Stokesbegan by saying that the Apothecaries’ Society of Ireland hadno power to grant a diploma or licence in medicine. Who saidthey ever had ? The Medical Council had no right to make adistinction between qualifications derived from a College ofPhysicians and the lower qualification derived from an Apothe-caries’ Company. Their duty was to secure that the qualifica-tions of anybody appearing on the Register should be suflicientfor the competent practice of medicine. He was surprised at theextraordinary course taken by Dr. Corrigan in running down theDublin Apothecaries’ Society, inviting them to look upon itwith contempt. No doubt the shares in that Society werevery valuable ; indeed, he was told they were so valuable thatit was worth the while of some fellows of the College of Phy-sicians in Ireland to purchase them.

Dr. CORRIGAN said there were two physicians in Dublin onthe list of shareholders. One of them married the daughter ofa respectable apothecary in Dublin, and the shares were keptin the possession of his daughter’s children, he holding themas trustee for the benefit of his children, so that bonâ fide thechildren were the shareholders. The other physician was SirRobert Kane, who began life as an apothecary, and who boughtshares in order to be elected lecturer of chemistry a great manyyears ago ; he had taken his name off the list and surrenderedhis licence ; and, notwithstanding that, they persisted in keep-ing his name on the list to give it the appearance of respecta-bility.

Dr. STORRAR said he had a remedy for Dr. Corrigan at once,and that was that he should hold up his hand for the hispec-

ion of examinations. Dr. Corrigan would not recognise nl-pection in any way ; and Dr. Leet, who was the representa-;ive of the body visited with such condemnation, was the onlyrish member of the Council who had held up his hand to in-

vite the presence of the members of the Council at the examina-tions.Mr. HARGRAVE supported the amendment, and said the

curriculum of the Apothecaries’ Hall of Ireland was most ex-bensive, enabling them to send out thoroughly efficient men.Dr. THOMSON said they might have been spared a good deal

of the latter part of Dr. Corrigan’s speech, because the subjectof the position of the apothecaries in Ireland had been goneover again and again, and was fully understood. The apothe-caries in Ireland were the first to improve the standard of theirexaminations, and on that ground, if on no other, they shouldhave been spared a good deal of what he might almost callmisrepresentation. A great deal had been said with respect tothe tendency of the resolution to mislead, but he thought theresolution proposed by Dr. Stokes had a much greater tendencyin that direction. The Council had not acted otherwise thanin conformity with the Act; they had given a fair interpreta-tion of the Act, and it was inappropriate and inexpedient tocome and ask them to explain away a resolution which theyhad deliberately agreed to.

Dr. STOKES said he had endeavoured to show that the certi-ficate issued by the Apothecaries’ Company was illegal, becausethey had no power whatever to issue any certificate but theone which was recited in their Act of Incorporation, and alsobecause the certificates were not issued in a proper way, for inthe Act of Incorporation there was no power to give a certifi-cate as a licentiate apothecary unless the person was sevenyears apprenticed. By his resolution the Council was simplyasked to say whether the licence invested its holders withpower to practise medicine or surgery or medicine and surgeryaccording to their qualifications ; and the Council, he thought,would put itself in a very strange position if it did not assentto that. They were not infallible. They might pass erroneousor imperfect resolutions, but surely the public interest requiredthat if they did so they should correct the error.The amendment proposed by Mr. Syme and seconded by

Dr. Storrar was then put to the Council and carried, ten votingfor it and six against it.

Mr. SYME requested that the names might be taken down,as also the names of those members who declined to vote.

Majority: Dr. Alderson, Dr. Embleton, Dr. Storrar, Dr.

Fleming, Mr. Syme, Dr. Thomson, Mr. Hargrave, Dr. Leet,Dr. Sharpey, and Dr. Christison.

Minority: Mr. Arnott, Dr. Andrew Wood, Dr. A. Smith,Dr. Apjohn, Dr. Corrigan, and Dr. Stokes.Not voting : The President, Mr. Cooper, and Dr. Quain.The remaining members of the Council were absent.Dr. STOKES moved, ’’That a committee be appointed to

consider and report as to what should be the subjects of gene-ral education in which all students should be examined priorto the commencement of their professional studies."Mr. ARNOTT seconded the motion, which was agreed to.The following gentlemen were appointed on the Committee :

Dr. Stokes (chairman), Mr. Arnott, Dr. Acland, Dr. Paget,Dr. Storrar, Dr. Thomson, Dr. Apjohn, and Dr. Quain.The Council then adjourned.

MONDAY, APRIL 10TH.

The minutes of the previous meeting were read and con-firmed.

After some conversation respecting the conviction, at

Castlebar, County Mayo, of John Carter Barrett, of felony,the further hearing of which was deferred,. The Council resolved itself into a Committee on Education;and the observations and suggestions on the Report of theSelect Committee on Education appointed last year, receivedfrom the different licensing bodies, were laid on the table, andordered to be printed and entered on the minutes.

Dr. WOOD moved, ’’ That a committee be appointed to con-sider and report on what should be the minimum course ofprofessional study through which all candidates should berequired to pass before receiving any qualification entitlingthem to register." The Council, he said, had already takensteps in the same direction by appointing a committee to laydown a minimum with regard to preliminary education. Inregard to professional education, they had never attempted tolay down any curriculum, or to indicate the subjects in whichthe students should be examined. It was stated in the report

. from the Navy Board that there was a lamentable ignorance of

422

operative surgery among the candidates; and it was a fact thatin many schools in the country operative surgery was nottaught, or, if taught, not taught effectually. It was, inhis opinion, very desirable that the Council should appoint acommittee to inquire into the courses of study, the hospitalattendances, and the like, which should be required, not forthe higher qualifications, but as a minimum of education byevery licensing body. He believed that most of the bodies, asregarded professional education, had come up to the standardthat would be laid down ; but he thought it would be desirablefor the Council to give some definite advice on the subject toall the bodies for the purpose of establishing something like auniform standard.

Dr. EMBLETON seconded the motion.Dr. CORRIGAN said he would have supported the motion if

he thought it likely to produce any practical result. He didnot think that the Council should busy. itself with minutedetails, which would lead to interminable discussions. The

adoption of the motion would revive the contest as to whatconstituted professional education, and the prospect of such aresult should deter them from entering into it. On questionsof hospital practice it would be almost impossible for the com-mittee to bring up a report. The present proposal was onlyanother effort to establish the Procrustean bed on which theyhad attempted to stretch the licensing bodies, but hitherto,he was happy to say, without effect. If they attempted to laydown a minimum, as proposed, it would soon come to be re-garded as a maximum,a and the students would naturally notbe desirous of attaining a higher standard. He hoped that Dr.Wood would withdraw his motion.

Mr. HARGRAVE said if the Council adopted a minimum, itwould lead to the introduction into the profession of a set ofbadly educated men, and it would be found very difficult toretrace the steps that had been taken. The very word"minimum" was most unfortunate.Mr. SYME opposed the motion, believing that the Council

had no power to enforce any regulations it might adopt. The

subject would be a fruitful source of discussion, and he couldsee no good likely to arise from the adoption of the proposal.

Mr. ARNOTT said he was not afraid of the term "minimum."Everybody had a certain standard, which was practically aminimum; but he thought there was no time to go into all the edetails at that late period of the session. He did not believe ethat the contest to which reference had been made would berevived. Nothing, in fact, could revive that controversy. The

College of Surgeons would henceforth carry out the regulationsof the Council, so that no difficulty would arise on that head.The Council ought not, he thought, to lay down any iron, in-flexible conditions, but merely adopt certain general principles.

Mr. COOPER maintained that the Branch Councils could ob-tain all the information that was required, and carry out theviews of the Council, by visiting the examinations according tothe powers conferred upon them.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD said that the Council ought not to abne-gate its powers, and shirk the duty which the Legislature hadimposed upon it. It was the proper body to regulate themedical education of the country, and it was its duty to take ievery necessary step in that direction.The motion was then put and negatived, six members voting

for it and fifteen against it. The names were as follows :-Majority: Mr. Arnott, Mr. Cooper, Dr. Paget, Dr. Storrar,

Mr. Syme, Dr. Thomson, Dr. A. Smith, Mr. Hargrave, Dr.Apjohn, Dr. Corrigan, Dr. Sharpey, Dr. Quain, Mr. Rumsey,Dr. Christison, Dr. Stokes.

Minority: Dr. Alderson, Dr. Acland, Dr. Embleton, Dr.Andrew Wood, Dr. Fleming, Dr. Parkes.Did not vote: The President, Dr. Leet.Dr. CORRIGAN moved,-" That it seems impossible to lay

down any scheme of education and examination comprisingdetails which would be applicable to, or could be uniformlycarried out by, all the licensing bodies enumerated in theMedical Act ; and that this Council is of opinion that theCommittee on Education, leaving all details to be carried outin such manner as may appear fit to them by the severallicensing bodies, should confine itself, in considering the ques-tion of education, to the following points, viz. :-I. Registrationand adequate preliminary examination in arts. 2. The time tobe interposed between the passing of the preliminary examina-tion and the final examination. 3. The mode of subdivision of Ithe professional examination, the period of study at which eachpart of the examination shall be gone through, and the subjectsto lm comprised in each part." Dr. Corrigan said that he pro-posed the resolution because, after the experience of five vearsin attempting to lay down the details of study, they had not

come to any agreement, and it was not likely that they ererwould. They had spent a whole day in endeavouring to deinewhat a medical school was, but up to the present horn nosatisfactory definition had been given. The various bodies andschools differed so greatly in their modes of instruction tlat itwould be found impossible to bring them into agreenent.They could, however,-and this he regarded as a matier ofvital importance,-establish an efficient system of registrttion.It was notorious that certificates were often given to studentswho had never attended a lecture ; and there were so manycompeting schools depending for their income upon the sale ofcertificates that the monstrous evil would never be shoppeduntil a system of registration was adopted. The next pointreferred to preliminary education. Regulations had alreadybeen laid down on the subject, but they had not been carriedout. The report from the Navy Board stated that some of thecandidates were utterly ignorant of Latin. These candidates,however, had been examined somewhere, and had receivedcertificates. It was not stated where they had been examined.It did not follow that the body giving the diploma gave alsothe preliminary education, the certificate of any of the bodiesas to preliminary education being accepted by the others,though ignorant of the nature and extent of the examination.

Dr. SHARPEY seconded the motion. His reason, he said, forvoting against Dr. Wood’s proposal was that he considered itinjudicious to endeavour to lay down a system of professionaleducation that should be universally applicable. Such a courseas that would lead to no useful result.

Dr. PARKES suggested that the consideration of the questionshould be referred to a smaller committee.

Dr. QUAIN said that at the last meeting of the Council aresolution was passed that all medical students should be sub-ject to a preliminary examination and be registered, and he didnot think the proposed resolution went beyond that point. Hethought they would stultify themselves by going into abstractpropositions. They had before them the report of the com-mittee appointed to consider the subject, and they ought notto begin the question de novo. He moved, as an amendment," That the report of the Select Committee on Education of thelast session be now proceeded with."Mr. HARGRAVE seconded the amendment.Dr. CORRIGAN said that the passing of the resolution need

not interfere with their consideration of the report of theSelect Committee. The resolution only expressed an opinionthat the Committee should limit itself to the three questionsnamed, and not go into other details.The amendment was then put and carried, ten voting in its

favour and nine against it. The amendment was also carriedas a substantive motion.The Council then proceeded to consider the Report of the

Select Committee appointed last year.REGISTRATION.

Dr. A. SMITH moved,-" That the registration of medicalstudents be placed under the charge of the branch registrars. ’’*

The motion was seconded by Dr. FLEMING, and agreed to.Dr. A. SMITH moved,—"That every student be registered at

the commencement of professional study, the date of such regis-tration to be considered as the date of commencement of pro-fessional studies."

Dr. CORRIGAN suggested that the resolution should read,," That every student be registered at or before the commence-ment of professional study," &c.

Dr. FLEMING objected to the proposed alteration, and saidhe was of opinion that a student should be only once registered- namely, when he enrolled himself as a medical student.

Mr. SYME protested against what he denominated the pre-sent painful, demoralizing, and useless system of giving certifi-cates to students ; and suggested that there should be anannual registration of medical students.

Dr. SHARPEY said that the proposed registration would in.terfere in no way with an annual registration by the differentlicensing bodies.

Dr. FLEMING said that the object was to enable the Councilto ascertain the date of the commencement of medical studies,and that the student should be registered once only for thepurposes of the Council.The PRESIDENT called attention to the circumstance that

the Council had, after mature deliberation, determined themode of registration; and suggested that it would be incon-venient to adopt any altered method unless some obvious ad-vantage was to be secured by it.

Dr. CORRIGAN again requested that the words " or before"might be inserted in the resolution.

423

Dr. PAGET said that if those words were inserted the studentmight allow several years to intervene between the period ofhis registration and the commencement of his studies ; so thatif four years were to elapse there might be only two of pro-fessional study.

Dr. THOMSON said that the only difficulty was as to the in-terval that should be allowed to intervene between the pre-liminary examination and the commencement of medicalstudies. It had been nowhere directly stated, though it mightbe considered to be implied, that no registration should takeplace except after a preliminary examination. If Dr. Cor-

rigan’s suggestion were adopted a very long interval mightexist between the preliminary examination and the commence-ment of professional studies. He would suggest that a regu-lation be established that registration should take place at thecommencement of the medical education.

Dr. SMITH said that that was already provided for. Thetable that was adopted showed the date of the preliminary ex-amination. He did not concur in the suggestion that thereshould be a limit to the interval between the preliminary ex-amination and the commencement of professional studies. Allthat was wanted was that there should be in the first instanceproof of preliminary education. A student ought not to beforced to commence his medical studies as soon as ho hadpassed the preliminary examination.Mr. SYME moved, as an amendment,-" That every medical

student shall be registered at the commencement of his pro-fessional studies ; and not until he has passed the preliminaryexamination."

Dr. SHARPEY seconded the amendment.Dr. ANDREW WOOD supported the amendment, which he

thought would remove any misunderstanding as to the meaningof the Council.Dr. CORRIGAN thought that some definition should be given

of "professional study.’’The amendment was then put and carried, eighteen voting

in its favour and one against. The amendment was also passedas a substantive motion.Dr. A. SMITH proposed,-" That each of the branch reais-

trars shall open a Register of medical students from the lstof April to the 15th of May, and from the 1st of October tothe 1st of December in each year, according to the subjoinedform" :-

Dr. ALDERSON seconded the resolution.Dr. FLEMING thought two months was too long a time to

give to the schools.Mr. ARNOTT was of the same opinion ; and said it ought not

to exceed fifteen days.Dr. PAGET moved as an amendment, that a column for

" place of study" be added.Dr. FLEMING seconded the amendment.Dr. APJOHN thought two months was too much; but yet,

if they called upon the -Registrar to close his Register withinfifteen days, great dissatisfaction would be produced. He sug-gested that the time should be fixed at twenty-five days.

Dr. PARKES asked whether there was any clause in the Actby which they could enforce such a registration.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD said Mr. Ouvry stated that it was partof the machinery by which the Medical Council were entitledto get information as to the course of study, and so on.The amendment was put to the Council and carried.It then stood as a substantive motion, andMr. RUMSEY moved as an amendment,-" That after the

words medical students,’ the resolution read as follows : ’andthat every student be required to register within twenty-fivedays after the commencement of each session or term;’ andthat the table be adopted, with the addition of a column forplace of study."Mr. HARGRAVE seconded the amendment.Dr. CHRISTISON said there was an objection to their using

the word "session" of study, or "term" of study, because thatimplied that they were to adopt the rule that attendance upona school was the only way to commence medical study. The

twenty-five days was too long. The great object of the regu-lation requiring registration at the commencement of studywas to bring the students to their studies as soon as possible.They had very great difficulty in Scotland at one time insecuring an early registration of their students; but now, -withvery few exceptions, they were all registered within fifteendays. He could not understand why students should not beexpected to commence within fifteen days. The time was

ample.Mr. ARNOTT said it appeared in Scotland they had the same

difficulty, and, in reality, the same success that they had inLondon. When a certain degree of latitude was allowed, ad-vantage was taken of it, but they now succeeded, with veryfew exceptions, in getting all registered within fifteen days.

Dr. THOMSON said the subject was fully considered last yearwhen the registration was under each licensing body. Hequite agreed with what Dr. Christison had said as to the im-portance of shortening the time as much as possible betweenthe opening and the closing of the register, because within hisown experience it had a most beneficial influence upon the at-tendance of students. But looking to the difference betweenthe recommendation of last year, which applied to the registerunder each licensing body, and the register which they nowproposed to make by the branch registrars, a few more daysought to be allowed. He would have fixed the period oftwenty-one days, it being understood that the return of stu-dents to the different schools would be made within a shorterperiod, and that perhaps a few more days might be allowed forthe transmission of documents. The twenty-one days wouldbe an ample period, and one which was not likely to lead toany abuses.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD said his only objection was that it wouldappear as if the Council were going back in its requirements.The fifteen days would give sufficient time; that period wasgiven in Edinburgh, and was found ample.

Dr. SHARPEY asked what was meant by "place of study.’’

He wished for information to know whether it meant a city, auniversity, or a school.The PRESIDENT said the resolution did not define what wasthe commencement of professional study.Dr. PAGET said it was exactly the same phrase as was agreedto last year in the form of register.

( It was agreed, after some further conversation, that theamendment should stand as follows:—"That each of the

branch registrars shall open a register of medical students, andthat application be made by every such student for registrationwithin fifteen days after the commencement of professionalstudy;" also that the form be adopted with the addition ofthe column for "place of study."

The amendment was carried nem. con. It was also put as asubstantive motion, and carried.

Dr. A. SMITH proposed-" That every person desirous ofbeing registered as a medical student shall apply in writing toany one of the branch registrars, according to a form to be hadon application, and shall produce or forward to him a certificateof his having passed a preliminary examination in Arts re-cognised by the General Medical Council, and furnish satisfac-tory proof of his age ; whereupon the said branch registrarshall enter his name and other particulars in the student’sregister, and the registrar shall give him a certificate of suchregistration accordingly."! Dr. APJOHN seconded the motion.’ Mr. ARNOTT said the proof of the candidate’s age and thecertificate of his having passed a preliminary examination were e’ not sufficient to prove him a medical student.

Dr. SHARPEY said that difficulty might be got over, but he edid not think it a good plan to throw the responsibility of

ascertaining the authenticity of such things on the medicalschools.Dr. SMITH said the words " place of study" must be added

! to make it coincide with the resolution just passed.Mr. ARNOTT said there should be some one to certify that

the student had commenced his education.

424

Mr. RUMSEY said that might be done by inserting, after thewords "proof of his ace, and of his having entered at amedical school."

Dr. CORRIGAN said the second resolution was, that the stu-dent should be registered at the commencement of his profes-sional study; they were now going to resolve that when heregistered he should forward a certificate that he had alreadyentered the profession.

Dr. CHRISTISON asked what was to be considered satisfactoryevidence as to age. As it at present stood, the student wouldgo to the registrar and ask what was satisfactory evidence.The registrar would say he did not know, but there were vari-ous kinds of evidence that were satisfactory. That phraseologyshould not be used unless it stated specifically what was theevidence to be produced. It no doubt pointed at some certifi-cate of birth, but he really objected to so precise a definitionas that. All they need ask was a declaration from the studentas to his age, because a little difference in the age of the stu-dent was a matter of no consequence when he was commencingstudy. It was a very different thing when he had completedstudy, and they should have a certificate of age before lie wasallowed to take a licence or diploma.The PRESIDENT said one of the recommendations -adopted

and printed by the Council last year was, "That the age oftwenty-one be the earliest age at which any professional licenceshall be obtained," and that the age in all instances shall beduly certified. It was not material to the Medical Councilwhether the student came to the school at the age of sixteen, i

seventeen, or eighteen.Dr. SMITH said he was quite willing to admit a declaration.Dr. CORRIGAN quite agreed with what Dr. Christison had

said, and suggested that " satisfactory proof of his age" shouldbe omitted altogether.

Dr. FLEMING moved that after the words ’’ General MedicalCouncil" they should insert "and of his having entered on fmedical study." ,

Mr. RUMSEY seconded the amendment.The PRESIDENT having read the resolution as altered,Mr. RUMSEY said if the word "medical" was put in he

should prefer the original motion to the amendment. Heshould be glad to withdraw his name if it was allowable.

Dr. FLEMING said he could not permit that, as it was a mostimportant point.

Dr. SMITH said that according to the amendment the studentwould have to prove that he had commenced his medicalstudies before he applied to be entered as a medical student.The amendment was then put to the Council and lost.The motion as finally amended stood thus : "That every

person desirous of being registered as a medical student shallapply (in writing) to the branch registrar of the kingdom inwhich he is residing, according to a form to be had on appli-cation, and shall produce or forward to him a certificate ofhis having passed a preliminary examination in arts recognisedby the General Medical Council, and of his place of study ;whereupon the said branch registrar shall enter his name andother particulars in the Students’ Register, and the registrarshall give him "a certificate of such registration accordingly.

"

The motion was put to the Council, and carried nem. co/:.Dr. SMITH proposed,-" That each of the branch registrars

shall supply to the several qualifying bodies, medical schools,and hospitals in that part of the United Kingdom of whichhe is registrar a sufficient number of blank forms of applicationfor the registration of medical students."

Dr. CORRIGAN seconded the motion, which was carried una-nimously.

Dr. SMITH proposed,-"That a copy of the register of medi-cal students so prepared by the branch registrars be trans-mitted to the Registrar of the General Council, who shall, underdirection of the Executive Committee, prepare and print analphabetical list of all registered students, and supply a copyof such authorized list to each of the bodies enumerated inSchedule A to the Medical Act."The resolution was seconded by Dr. CORRIGAN, and carried

M’M. MM.

Dr. SMITH proposecl,-" That the several licensing bodiesbe recluested, after October, 1868, to abstain from examiningany candidate for licence or degree whose name does not ap-pear on the authorized list of medical students, or whose nameis not already on the Medical Register ; and that they be alsorequested to recognise the date of each student’s registrationas the commencement of professional study."

Dr. CORRIGAN seconded the resolution.The PRESIDENT said the latter clause of the resolution had

better I-,e omitted, as it would be admitting a great principle.

Dr. SMITH consented to the adoption of that course; andthe clause, as amended, was as follows :--

" That the several licensing bodies be requested not to admitto examination, after October, 1869, any candidate for licenceor degree whose name does not appear on the authorised listof medical students, or whose name is not already on theMedical Register."The resolution, as amended, was carried 1/un. co,2.Dr. SMITH proposed, - That the several Branch Councils

shall have power to admit special exceptions to the fore-

going regulations as to registration, for reasons which shallappear to them satisfactory."The resolution was seconded by Dr. CORRIGAN, and carried

unanimously.Dr. ANDREW WOOD moved, as an additional clause,—" That

the Branch Councils be desired to take means to make these

regulations known to the medical students at the variousmedical schools."

Dr. FLEMING seconded the resolution, which was unanimouslyagreed to.The Council having resumed,Dr. EMBLETON moved,-" That the returns from the licens-

ing bodies, in compliance with recommendation 23 of theCommittee on Education, and the registers of medical studentsin England and Ireland, be referred to a committee; the com-mittee to consist of Dr. Embleton (chairman), Mr. Cooper,Dr. Thomson, Dr. Leet, Dr. Apjohn, and Dr. Stokes."

, Dr. WOOD seconded the resolution, which was carried nem.COH.

The Council then adjourned.

TUESDAY, APRIL 11TH.The minutes of the previous meeting were read and con-

firmed., On the motion of Dr. ANDREW WOOD, the Council resolveditself into a Committee on Education.j The consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on! Education was then resumed.

Dr. ANDREW Wo OD then moved,-" That the age of twenty-one be the earliest age at which any professional licence shallbe obtained, and that the age shall in all instances be dulycertified." That regulation, he said, was agreed to at themeeting of the Council last year. Hitherto, he believed, stu-dents had frequently been examined before attaining the age oftwenty-one. Such a practice might lead to a considerableamount of laxity, and he thought there should be some limitas to the age at which a student might come up for the finalexamination. The body with which he was connected had re-cently received an application from a student, who stated thathe had gone through four years’ study, and was ready to comeup for examination, but that he would not be of age until an-other year had expired. He (Dr. Wood) had no hesitation inwriting to the student to say that he could not be examined.In some bodies, however, that course was not pursued, andthe applicant in the instance he had mentioned stated that hewas aware of places at which gentlemen were allowed to beexamined many months before attaining twenty-one years.

Dr. A. SMITH stated that in some instances candidates evenreceived their diplomas before attaining their majority.Mr. SYME said they were very particular in Edinburgh onthat point. He moved as an amendment,-" That the age of

twenty-one be the earliest age at which candidates for any pro-fessional licence shall be admitted to their final examination,and that the age shall in all instances be duly certified."

Dr. PAGET seconded the amendment.Dr. APJOHN thought the proposed legislation was unneces-

’ sary. The authorities in Dublin were opposed to the restric-tion contained in the resolution passed last year. They, how-

-

ever, acted up to the regulation of the Council, and did notgive diplomas till candidates attained the age of twenty-one;but he questioned whether they would go so far as to refuse to

_

examine candidates under that age. The practice with themhitherto had been to place no limitation as to age in examina-

; tions.Dr. QUAIN was strongly in favour of the proposed limitation.

. No candidate in the University of London, he remarked, would; be admitted to an examination if he was even a week under) twenty-one years of age.Mr. SYME thought the Council ought not to be deterred byany fear as to the non-compliance with the regulations of Councilon the part of any recusant bodies.Dr. STOKES thought it inexpedient to insist upon the pro-posed limitation. In some instances candidates were prepared

425

to pass their examination before attaining twenty-one years ofage ; and, if the proposed limitation were adopted, they would - .be debarred from pursuing the higher and more practical course ;of study which they were likely to follow at home or abroad:after examination.

Dr. THOMSON concurred in the opinion of Dr. Stokes. He

thought it desirable to give every facility to the acquirementof that practical knowledge which was obtained after the finalexamination. Speaking from recollection, he believed that allcandidates who had been examined before the age of twenty-one in the University of Glasgow were young men of un- Idoubted talent, who had passed with distinction, and whoafter their examination had busily occupied themselves in pre-paring for the practice of the profession in a way that theCouncil could not but approve. Such a course he consideredbetter than keeping over them the incubus of an examination,and requiring them to repeat the exercises of the "grinder."He considered that the proposal was a step in the wrong direc-tion, and involved legislation too minute to be practical. The

annual examination was a very different thing from the grant-ing of a diploma, which, no doubt, ought not to be given beforethe candidates attained the age of twenty-one. The adoptionof the proposition would, he believed, have an injurious effectin the schools. It was possible that a candidate who presentedhimself for examination might be within a month or two oftwenty-one, and it would be a great hardship to adopt a regu-lation so stringent as that proposed, which would have theeffect of postponing his examination for another year.Mr. ARNOTT considered that some limit must be adopted;

and that if the Council allowed any latitude in the matterthere would be no end to the applications they would receivefor a relaxation of their rules. Their great object was to securefor the benefit of the public a set of well-educated medicalpractitioners. He did not think the Council would be doingits duty to the public if it admitted candidates to the finalexamination before attaining the age of twenty-one.

Dr. PAGET was sorry to find himself differing from Dr.Stokes and Dr. Thomson, but he believed that clever youngmen who were able to pass their final examination beforearriving at their majority would find it an advantage to becompelled to spend a longer time over their practical studies.It should be borne in mind that the final examination was a ithoroughly practical one, and no amount of time spent in pre-paring for it would be wasted. ,

Dr. CORRIGAN supported the original resolution. Thelicensing bodies, lie believed, would cordially co-operate withthe Council in adopting the limitation with reference to thegranting of diplomas; but the amendment really introduceda cccsus belli, and if the bodies were induced to rebel in refer-ence to one regulation they might also rebel against another.It often happened that a young man on presenting himself forexamination wanted a few months of his majority. He desired,perhaps, to go abroad, and it would be inflicting great hardshipupon him to insist upon his remaining in England another yearfor the purpose of passing an examination for which he was atthe time fully prepared. He believed that the Queen’s Uni-versity of Dublin would not obey the regulation, if adopted bythe Council. It would prove a bone of contention, and hehoped it would not be pressed. A sufficient limit was securedby the regulation that the licence should not be given untilthe candidate attained his majority.

Dr. SMITH thought it was a great advantage to a youngman of superior abilities and industry to be able to get rid ofthe incubus of a pending examination. He knew of six orseven young men in the University of Dublin in that position,and he believed they were all more diligent after the examina-tion than before.Mr. SvME said that the object should be to act in the spirit

of the regulation, if not in accordance with the letter. At theUniversity of Edinburgh a candidate was allowed to pass hisfinal examination in August if he came of age before November.If the proposal were adopted, it would be in the power of anylicensing body to make any bye-law to meet such cases, pro-vided they entered into the spirit of the regulation. TheCouncil could not object to any slight departure from theletter of the law; but if the licensing bodies departed fromthe limitation to the extent of twelve months or more, theCouncil would no doubt have reason to express its disapproval.Mr. COOPER considered that twenty-one was the earliest age

at which a candidate should undergo the final examination.It was impossible, he thought, that he could be in a positionbefore that age to practise his profession satisfactorily to thepublic.

Dr. CORRIGAN thought the Council would be breaking faith

with the licensing bodies if it adopted the proposed limitation.A resolution had already been passed limiting the age at whicha professional licence should be obtainable, and he considered ithighly undesirable to apply the limitation to the final examina-tion. Such a departure from the resolution of last year wouldbe unfavourably received by the licensing bodies.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD expressed his astonishment at the lineof argument adopted by Dr. Corrigan in regard to that andother resolutions. His argument was-" Do not pass thisresolution; I tell you we will not agree to it." The Councilought not to listen to such a statement. Its duty was to con-sider what was best for the profession and the public, and toissue its recommendations accordingly. The bodies might ormight not adopt them, but it was the duty of the Council toexercise all the influence it could to secure their adoption.The Council had refused to apply to Parliament for powers toenable it to enforce its regulations, but it had not abandonedall the powers conferred upon it by the Act. They had beentold that the Council would not be treating the bodies well ifit adopted the proposed limitation. He considered that theCouncil was not treated well when it was told by the bodiesthat they would not obey its regulations. It had been statedthat a resolution had already been passed on the subject ofthe limitation, and that it was inexpedient to alter it. Thelaws of the Council, however, were not like those of theMedes and Persians, and they ought not to be deterred frommaking any alteration that might seem expedient. Only yes-terday a resolution was proposed, and supported by Dr. Cor-rigan, for altering the rules as to the registration, and theproposal was adopted by the Council. It was admitted thatthere ought to be a limit of some kind, and he could conceive eno better limit than that proposed. He hoped that Mr. Syme’samendment would be adopted, with the addition of somewords permitting licensing bodies to legislate for exceptionalcases ; such exceptional cases, with the reasons for consideringthem exceptional, to be transmitted to the Branch Councils.

Mr. HARGRAVE said that the question had already been fullyconsidered, and ought not, in his opinion, to be reopened.

Dr. SHARPEY thought it would be expedient to adopt theaddition suggested by Dr. Wood, in order to meet exceptionalcases that might arise. He did not attach much importanceto the objection as to keeping the incubus of an examinationhanging over the student. It should be remembered that theexamination was a final one, having reference to practical sub-jects, which the candidate could never allow to pass out of hismind.

Dr. STOKES said he was not actuated by any feeling of" corporate jealousy,’’ but he was jealous for the reputation ofthe Council, and he feared that that reputation would suffer ifthey made little vexatious additions to resolutions alreadyadopted after full consideration. He entreated the Council topause before making such changes, and rendering itself ridi.culous.

Dr. THOMSON said he should be content if the proposedaddition were adopted.

Dr. ACLAND said the Council had already resolved thattwenty-one should be the earliest age at which a licence shouldbe given, and he earnestly hoped that the Council would notfetter the proposition with any further details. The questionwas recently discussed at the Oxford University, and they de.clinecl to make any promise as to limiting the age for examina-tion. Scarcely any Oxford student had passed before twenty-

! one ; but the university would make no pledge on the subject.They ought to trust more to the honour of the bodies, and notfetter them with minute regulations.

Dr. QUAIN said that he heard then for the first time thatthe final examination and the obtaining a professional licencewere not one and the same thing, and taking place at the same

time.Dr. CORRIGAN thought the Council was on the verge of

mischief. They ought not to do anything calculated to irritatethe bodies, or to presume upon the appearance of the powerwhich they did not really possess. With regard to the pro.posed exceptions, of what use would they be ? If the reasonsfor the exceptions were not considered satisfactory, they could

only express their disapprobation, about which the licensingbodies would not care a straw. He was quite sure that thei university which he represented would not adopt the regula-tion, nor send in a list of exceptions. The governing bodycontained some of the first men in Ireland, and it was not. likely that they would consent to state the specific reasons; which induced them to examine a candidate two or three

months before he attained twenty-one.L The PRESIDENT said he thought it only respectful to the

426

Council to state the reasons for the vote which he intended togive on that the second occasion of his recording his vote. Inhis long experience as a teacher in the University of Cambridgeand the metropolitan schools, he had known instances of thekind mentioned by Dr. Stokes, Dr. Thomson, and others, inwhich students of greatly superior talents and industry hadacquired sufficient information to enable them to pass theirexamination at an earlier age than twenty-one. He did not, how-ever, think that the Council ought to legislate for such excep-tional cases, but for the general body of medical students.Whatever rules they might lay down, some individuals wouldsuffer hardship. He was in the position of Dr. Quain, learningnow, almost for the first time, that there was a wide distinc-tion between the granting of a licence and the admission to thefinal examination. In most of the bodies in the metropolisthe two things were done uno flatu; but if the final examina-tion took place anterior to the granting of a licence, it wasessential that the Council should have some security as to theage of the candidates. It was admitted that there should besome limitation; but they had not heard how long prior to theage of twenty-one it would be desirable to permit candidatesto be examined. Unless they laid down an intelligible rule,such as that proposed by Mr. Syme, they would be admittingthe small end of the wedge, and could never tell how far itmight be driven home. The objection that the rule wouldpress hardly upon certain young men, in compelling them topersevere with their studies, was entirely met by the observa-tions of Dr. Paget and Dr. Sharpey, that the final examinationwas a practical and not an elementary one, and it could be nohardship for a student to spend three or six months longer inthe wards of a great hospital and in the pathological theatre.The amendment was then put to the meeting and lost, eight

voting in its favour and fourteen against it.Mr. Syme’s motion was then put and carried.Dr. ANDREW WOOD moved the adoption of the first clause

of Section 3 in the report of the Select Committee on Educa-tion,-" That no licence be obtained at an earlier period thanafter the close of thelastwinter session of the fourth year of studyafter the registration of the candidate as a medical student."

Mr. ARNOTT said that the effect of the resolution would beto diminish the term of study from four years to three yearsand a half. If that was desired it ought to be distinctly de-clared, and not be arrived at by a side wind.The PRESIDENT said that there had been no recommendation

on the subject by the Council.Dr. PAGET moved as an amendment,-" That no licence be

obtained at an earlier period than after the expiration of forty-eight months subsequent to the registration of the candidateas a medical student."Mr. ARNOTT seconded the amendment.Dr. THOMSON considered that the adoption of the resolution

would be attended with great inconvenience.Mr. SYME thought it would be impracticable. He con-

sidered three years and a half of professional study to be suffi-cient.After a brief discussion the amendment was adopted by a

majority of twelve against eight. The names were as follows :-Majority: The President, Dr. Alderson, Mr. Arnott, Mr.

Cooper, Dr. Paget, Dr. Embleton, Dr. Storrar, Dr. Smith,Mr. Hargrave, Dr. Leet, Dr. Sharpey, and Mr. Rumsey.

Minority : Dr. Andrew Wood, Dr. Fleming, Mr. Syme, Dr.Thomson, Dr. Apjohn, Dr. Parkes, Dr. Christison, and Dr.Stokes.Mr. HARGRAVE moved the adoption of Clause 2,-" That

the course of study required for a licence shall comprehendattendance, during not less than four winter sessions or threewinter and two summer sessions, at a recognised medicalschool; and that evidence shall be produced that the remain-ing period of the four years has been passed in the acquisitionof professional knowledge."

Dr. PAGET seconded the motion.Dr. CORRIGAN wished to know what was understood by " a

recognised medical school." It was impossible to discuss theresolution without having a definition of these words. It hadbeen stated that a medical school was an hospital with teachersattached to it, provided with appliances for teaching the variousbranches of medicine and surgery. If that was the proper de-finition it would destroy several of the schools in Ireland andelsewhere.

Dr. PARKES considered that the recognition of the schoolsshould be left to the licensing bodies themselves.

Mr. SYME said that his notion of a medical school was aschool where there were two or more regular courses of medicalinstruction.

Dr. EMBLETON moved, as an amendment, ’’ That the Com-mittee, before proceeding further, determine what are therequisites for constituting a medical school under their recom-mendation. "

Dr. ARJOHN seconded the amendment.Mr. HARGRAVE thought they were making a mountain of a

mole-hill. It was not, he thought, necessary that a schoolshould be attached to an hospital.

Dr. PARKES thought it undesirable to enter into any de&ni-tion.

Dr. ACLAND thought that after the words " a recognisedmedical school," there should be inserted " or other institutionrecognised by the several licensing bodies and approved by theMedical Council." It was in the knowledge of almost all themembers of the Council that for the last fifteen years greatefforts had been made at Oxford to introduce on a somewhatlarge scale the study of natural science. One of the objectssought by that movement was to induce a larger number ofpersons to go through the universities into the medical pro.fession; and he thought it would be of great service to theCouncil and the profession if such a result were obtained. Itwould, in his opinion, be undesirable to lay down a definitionof a medical school which should exclude the rising scientificinstruction given in the Oxford University. It would notmatter to Oxford in the least; they might be glad to be re-lieved of the relationship; but he believed it would injuriouslyaffect the medical profession. They ought not to exclude anyinstitution that gave bonâ-fide scientific instruction which wasat the root of medical education.

Dr. SHARPEY said that when he began teaching anatomy inEdinburgh he was not in connexion with any hospital. Therewere, he believed, many schools to which no special hospitalwas attached.I The PRESIDENT said that there were various institutions inEngland where chemistry, botany, and other sciences weretaught, but in no way connected with the medical profession.No objection, he thought, ought to be taken to a candidatewho had received the commencement of his professional edu-cation at such institutions, though they were not recognisedmedical schools. The Council ought not, in his opinion, toadopt too strict a definition. It was not material to the Councilwhether the candidate began his study in a recognised medicalschool or in a university, provided he had received sound in-struction.The amendment was then put and lost, three voting for and

twelve against it.Dr. CHRISTISON then moved, as an amendment to the ori-

ginal motion, ’’ That the course of professional study requiredfor a licence shall comprehend attendance during not less thanfour winter sessions, or three winter and two summer sessions,at a school recognised by any of the licensing bodies mentionedin Schedule A to the Medical Act."

Dr. PARKES seconded the amendment.Dr. CORRIGAN thought the amendment, which required only

two years and a half of study, was a distinct contradiction tothe previous motion, which required a course of study extend-ing over four years.

Dr. PAGET pointed out that the amendment did not statethat the course of study should consist of the attendance men-tioned, but should comprehend it.

Dr. CHRISTISON said he should not object to some regulationas to the mode of filling up the remainder of the period of fouryears. It would hardly be considered desirable that the wholeperiod of four years should be spent in acquiring professionalknowledge without any relaxation whatever.

Dr. Christison’s amendment was then put and carried, andwas also adopted as a substantive motion.

, Dr. PARKES moved the omission of the next clause,-" That

in reference especially to Dr. Parkes’s notice of motion, as toduration of sessions and of courses of lectures, the regulationof the duration of sessions, and the extent and duration ofcourses of lectures and instruction, be left for the present tothe several licensing bodies."

-

Dr. STORRAR seconded the motion, which was carried.Mr. SYME moved the adoption of the next clause,-" That

it be recommended to the several licensing bodies that thecourses of instruction required by them should be framed insuch a manner as to secure a due share of attention both topreparatory branches and to those more strictly connected withthe practice of medicine and surgery; and that it be suggestedaccordingly to those bodies that their regulations should besuch as to prevent attendance upon lectures from interferingwith hospital and clinical study."Dr. STORRAR seconded the motion, which was carried.

427

Dr. THOMSON moved the omission of the next clause,-"That, while avoiding for the present all other details bywhich this object may be attained, it be recommended that nosubject of lectures be enforced by regulation to be attendedoftener than once." Dr. Thomson said that the clause ap-peared to him to be wholly unnecessary.Mr. HARGRAVE seconded the motion.Mr. SYME moved an amendment that the clause should

stand.Dr. ANDREW WOOD said he should be prepared to support

Mr.Syme if he would insert the word "systematic" before" lectures." He did not wish to say that a man was not toattend more than one course of clinical lectures.Dr. A. SMITH seconded the amendment. For some years

past, serious inconvenience had arisen in the Dublin schoolson account of the compulsory attendance at three courses oflectures upon the same subject. A very large proportion ofthe profession were of opinion that one course of lectures wasas much as was desirable. The adoption of the resolution wouldbe one of the greatest boons that could be conferred uponmedical students.

Dr. EMBLETON considered the clause unnecessary. It was aneedless restriction upon the bodies mentioned in Schedule A.The number of lectures to be attended by the students mightsafely be left in the hands of the licensing bodies.Dr. CORRIGAN protested against the discussion of such minor

details, and supported Dr. Thomson’s motion.Dr. Araofiv thought it would be a most unsafe doctrine to

propound to say that a student was fully equipped if heattended but one course of lectures on anatomy.Mr. HARGRAVE opposed the introduction of the clause, and

said if it was passed, the College of Surgeons of Ireland wouldbe prepared to go to the Privy Council upon it.The amendment was then put to the Council, and negatived.The original motion was then agreed to.Dr. STORRAR moved the adoption of Clause 6-" That the

Council intimate that they will view with approbation anyencouragement held out by the licensing bodies to students toprosecute the study of the natural sciences before they engagein studies of a strictly professional character."

Dr. EMBLETON seconded the motion.Dr. ArjOHX apprehended that no good could arise from the

passing of the resolution. It would turn the attention of thestudents from subjects of great importance to subjects thatthey were not competent to deal with until they had acquireda certain amount of professional education. He moved, as anamendment, that the clause be omitted.Mr. ApNOTT saw no objection to the clause. The knowledge

of languages was not the only study that need occupy youngmen going up at the age of seventeen or eighteen to studymedicine. He thought either botany, chemistry, or zoologymight be then studied with advantage.

Dr. CORRIGAN seconded the amendment.Dr. WOOD thought the natural sciences, at least botany,

zoology, and geology, were good training sciences, and thatthey might well precede the course of professional study. TheCollege of Surgeons of Edinburgh had included them in theirpreliminary education, making them, however, optional. Itwas a different thing with regard to chemistry. That was ascience so intimately allied with medicine and with pathology,that if they were to encourage a young man to take his exa-mination in chemistry at the time he passed the trial examina-tion, they would be doing him a very serious injury, and hewould not be capable of unravelling many important points inthe science which he would find were highly necessary to theunderstanding of pathology. ,

Dr. A. SMITH thought the motion could do no possibleharm. The Council would be only expressing their appro-bation if the colleges encouraged the young men in the pursuitof these branches of study. He knew from his own experi-ence that it was very important that students should be en-couraged to acquire some knowledge of the natural sciences.

Dr. CORRIGAN said the Council would be going beyond theirspecial duties if they passed the clause. He did not under-stand the clause,—" That the Council intimate that they willview with approbation any encouragement held out by thelicensing bodies." He wished to know the meaning of theword "encouragement." Was it to be money reward ?-orwhat ? If it was explained he might vote for it.

Dr. CHRISTISON said although his medical education waspursued a very long period ago, he attended courses on botany,natural history in several branches, and chemistry, not onlybefore he commenced his professional studies, but before hehad the least idea that he should be a medical man. He con-

sidered that if they encouraged medical students to take che-mistry before they commenced their strictly medical studies, itwould be doing them a great deal of good. They asked thatfour years might be appointed for professional study, in whichchemistry and natural history and botany might be included ;but by that recommendation they really asked the licensingbodies to encourage the student to take five years.

Dr. Ac’LAND entirely agreed with the principle of the clause,but not with its wording. If they looked at the commence-ment of Section 3 they would see the clauses were recom-mendations ; and so it would be recommended " that theCouncil intimate."

After some conversation the Council allowed Dr. Storrar tostrike out the words " that the Council intimate," and to makethe clause read-" That the Council will view with appro-bation," &c.The amendment moved by Dr. Apjohn, and seconded by

Dr. Corrigan,-" That Clause 6 of the recommendations re-

lating to professional examination be omitted, "-was nega-tived.

Dr. ACLAND proposed, as another amendment, that the fol-lowing motion be substituted :-" That the licensing bodiestake into their consideration what portion of natural scienceshall be comprised in the course of education prior to com-mencing strictly professional study." He agreed with Dr.Corrigan that the motion was superfluous, and would give riseto all sorts of scholarships and questions of that kind. The

only necessary thing was to direct the licensing bodies to con-sider seriously how much of natural science should be includedin previous education.Mr. RUMSEY seconded the amendment, which was put to

the Council and negatived.The original motion for the adoption of the clause, moved

by Dr. Storrar and seconded by Dr. Embleton, was thencarried., The Council having resumed,

The PRESIDENT said the document containing a certificateas to the conviction of felony of John Carter Barrett, at Castle-bar, County Mayo, had been submitted to the solicitor, andhe declared it to be a good, valid, and regular certificate.

Dr. A. SMITH moved,-" That the name of John CarterBarrett be erased from the Medical Register."

I Dr. STOKES seconded the motion, which was agreed to nem.con.

The Council then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12TH.After the minutes of the last meeting were read,Dr. ALDERSON referred to the case of John Carter Barrett,

and asked if the resolution of the Council could be recon-sidered. He said it was clear that no sentence had beenpassed, although the man had been convicted, and was placedunder his own recognizances to appear when called upon.

Dr. WOOD rose to order, on the ground that the objectionshould have been taken at the time the motion was made.The PRESIDENT said the objection was fatal.Dr. CORRIGAN said Dr. Alderson might give notice of a mo-

tion that the resolution be rescinded.The minutes were then confirmed.The Council then resolved itself into a General Committee

on Education, and resumed the consideration of the Report ofthe Select Committee.

Dr. STOKES moved the omission of Clause 7 of the Report onProfessional Education,-" That the several licensing bodiesbe requested to furnish a short statement of the mode in whichtheir examinations are now conducted,-whether by written,oral, or practical examination ; and of the length of time acandidate is under examination in each or all of these ways."His objection was that it was trivial legislation, and was cal-culated to damage their character as a legislative body. Theyhad the means of obtaining information, and the continuedworry of the licensing bodies ought to be discouraged.Mr. SYME seconded the motion.Dr. PARKES moved as an amendment, - ’’ That those

licensing bodies which have not already done so, be requestedto furnish a statement of the dates of their examinations, andof the modes in which such examinations are conducted,-whether by written, oral, or practical examination ; and of thelength of time a candidate is under examination in each or allof these ways. And that the Registrar transmit these reportsto the members of the Council, in order that they may be takeninto consideration at the next meeting of the several BranchCouncils." He said he was sorry to differ from such autho-

428

rities as Dr. Stokes and Mr. Syme. Under the 7th clause of Ithe 3rd section the Council last year decided to inform the clicensing bodies that a statement of the method in which exami-nations were conducted would probably be required. They didnot absolutely sanction the clause, but gave it a sort of virtual’sanction when they ordered it to be circulated among thevarious licensing bodies. Several of these bodies had sent ina statement of the method in which their examination had i

been conducted, and other bodies had stated that they would (

have no objection whatever to supply the information whencalled upon. In applying for the information the Council hadnot gone beyond their powers. Those powers were speciallygiven under Clause 18 of the Medical Act, and it was ratherextraordinary that they should have gone on for seven yearswithout bringing it into action. It was absolutely essential toknow how the examinations were conducted ; and if they didnot obtain the information in that way, they must in someother way-either in the examination rooms, or from the re-presentatives of the licensing bodies. He was utterly unableto find any reason for opposition to the clause, and if any wasmade it would be on the part of those who voted against thesupervision of examinations at all. He conceived the minoritywould, as a matter of course, follow the universal rule of

bowing to the decision of the majority, and endeavour to carryout the resolution in the best possible manner. On the groundsthat such returns had been partially sent in, that they wereempowered by law to call for them, and that the calling forthem was absolutely essential to the carrying out of the reso-lution passed by the majority of the Council, he begged theCouncil to adopt the amendment of which he had given notice.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD seconded the amendment. He thoughtMr. Syme, on reconsideration, would see that the course pro-posed in it was the right thing to be done, for no one in theCouncil was more anxious than himself to have a supervisionand visitation of the examinations. If there was any functionof the Council more distinctly marked out than another, it wasthat they were entitled to call for a return of the methodin which examinations were carried on. It was pointed out inClause 18 : "The several Colleges and bodies in the UnitedKingdom mentioned in Schedule A to this Act shall from timeto time, when required by the General Council, furnish suchCouncil with such information as they may require as to coursesof study and examinations to be gone through in order to ob-tain the respective qualifications mentioned in Schedule A to ithis Act, and the ages at which such courses of study are re-quired to be gone through, and such qualifications are conferred,and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualifica-tions." That clause evidently pointed out the importance ofthe matter, and conferred the requisite authority. It was ofgreat importance that they should have uniformity in themethod of carrying out examinations.

Mr. SYME said his only objection to the proposition was thathe considered it to be unnecessary. If the other members ofthe Council thought it necessary, he would withdraw his nameas the seconder of the motion.

Dr. A. SMITH said in that case he would second Dr. Stokes’smotion.

Dr. CORRIGAN objected to the amendment on the ground of Iits going into unnecessary details. Dr. Parkes seemed to think Ithe resolution was essentially founded on the supervision ofexaminations by the Branch Councils. He (Dr. Corrigan) wouldnot undertake any such office. It was an invidious and odioustask; and for any man who had anything to do with his time,to be engaged in it was totally out of the question. He couldsee no practical result arising from visitations. If the BranchCouncils were to supervise an examination; if he (Dr. Corrigan)were such a fool (oh ! oh !)-if anybody called him a fool heshould of course call him to order, but he surely had a rightto call himself a fool if he liked (laughter)-if he were such afool as to give up two or three hours which might be moreprofitably employed in the middle of the day, to sit down andlisten to an examination, what would come of it ? He would

go to the Branch Council and say, the examination of such alicensing body was bad. The representative of the body wouldget up and say he was in error; they would each give a verbalrepresentation, and the result would be nothing. There was amode in which they might acquire information as to how thoseexaminations were conducted, without the machinery of super-vision, and that was by making the examinations public in theway he first proposed (hear, and "no, no")-namely, that themembers and graduates of the several licensing bodies shouldsit round the table, and watch the proceedings. As to super-vision by the Branch Council he looked upon the whole thingas impracticable.

Dr. STOKES said he had heard with surprise the statementof Dr. Parkes, that those who were opposed to his motionwould probably be those who were opposed to the supervisionof examinations. If there was any meaning in words, thatwas a slur upon certain members of the Council and certainexaminers, implying that they were afraid to furnish informa-tion. His answer was, that those gentlemen who were opposedto the admission of the clause were those who wished to givecomplete publicity. He wished to know what was meant by"uniformity of examination." Was it a thing they couldexpect to obtain ? Was it uniformity in the method, in thelength, in the subjects of the examinations, or was it uniformityin the examiners ? It must be some of those things, and hethought if it were uniformity in the examiners that resultwould not be obtained. It was the old theory of puttingvarious feet into one shoe; and if that was the object of Dr.Parkes’s resolution, there could not be a stronger argumentagainst it.

Dr. PARKES said his meaning was, that he thought thosegentlemen who opposed the supervision of examinations mightlogically oppose the returns asked for. He did not at all in-tend to cast any slur upon those who were opposed to super-vision. What was sought for was, in the first instance, effi-ciency in the examinations ; and uniformity was a matterwhich arose afterwards.The amendment was then put to the Council and carried,

fourteen voting for it and four against it. It was then put asa substantive motion, and carried.

EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. SvNE moved, ‘‘That the first clause of the recommenda-tions be adopted :-’ That the licensing boards be advised toencourage the periodical examination of students at theirseveral classes.’"

Dr. ANDREW WOOD seconded the motion.Dr. PAGET did not think it desirable that the Council should

make a regulation of that kind. lForeover, the licensing boardswere not all educational boards ; so that the recommendationwas by no means applicable to all, but only to those whichwere at the same time educational bodies and licensingbodies. His objection to it was on the general principle thatit was inadvisable for the Council to legislate or to issue re-commendations on matters of simple detail, which it was farbetter to leave to the licensing bodies or schools themselves.

Mr. SYME regarded it as of the greatest consequence thatthe examinations should take place. He thought Dr. Paget’sobjection would be removed if they inserted the words theseveral classes," instead of " their several classes."

, Dr. WOOD said it was not a mere matter of trivial detail, buta fundamental and most important question. He well recol-

lected, when a student at college, that the only instructionthey were privileged to enjoy consisted of lectures from day today for five or six days in the week, and no means were evertaken to ascertain whether they understood what the lectures-were meant to convey. There were occasional examinations,but there was no regular examination by the teachers to ascer-

tain the progress of the student. The result was that a greatmany students neglected the earlier courses of their study, and

were obliged, by an enormous and stupendous system of cramin the third and fourth years, to make up for their deficienciesin the former years. It would be a great improvement if theysanctioned or made imperative periodical class-examinations.

Dr. SHARPEY said the terms of the resolution were merelythat they should encourage the licensing boards, not compelthem. He was strongly in favour of holding examinations,and found in his own experience that they were well appre-ciated by students.Mr. COOPER said it was a matter resting with the professors

and teachers, and not with the licensing boards.The PRESIDENT thought the examinations were of the ut-

most importance, but that they should be left to the discretionof the teachers. He suggested, as the Council had determinedupon the cardinal points on education, that the discussion ofthese matters of detail should be left for another year, other-wise they would not be able to accomplish one-half of thebusiness for which they were assembled.

Dr. PAGET proposed the following amendment, which, hesaid, would reconcile the difficulties in some degree : "That,while acknowledging the great educational value of the periodi-cal class-examination of students, the Council decline to issue

advice or instruction upon the subject."Dr. THOMSON seconded the amendment.

I Mr. SYME said every member of the Council had expresseda great feeling in favour of examinations ; therefore they must

429

take care not to express anything which might imply a con-trary feeling.Mr. ARNOTT said the amendment appeared to throw cold

water upon examinations. He was, therefore, prepared tovote against it, and also against the motion. ,

The amendment was then put to the Council and lost, sixvoting for it and twelve against it.The motion, as amended, substituting " the’’ for "their,"

was then put to the Council and lost, seven voting for it and Itwelve against it.

Dr. WOOD asked that the names might be taken down.Majority: Dr. Alderson, Mr. Arnott, Mr. Cooper, Dr.

Acland, Dr. Paget, Dr. Thomson, Dr. Smith, Mr. Hargrave, Dr.Leet, Dr. Apjolm, Dr. Corrigan, and Dr. Stokes. I.

Minority: Dr. Embleton, Dr. Wood, Dr. Fleming, Mr.,,Syme, Dr. Sharpey, Dr. Parkes, and Dr. Christison.

Declined voting : The President, Dr. Storrar, and Dr. Quain.Clause 1 of Section 4 (Examinations) was consequently

.omitted.Mr. HARGRAVE moved the omission of Clause 2,-" That

the final examinations of the licensing boards be so carried onas to be an efficient test of the practical acquaintance of can-didates with the several branches of medical knowledge, andespecially with the practice of medicine and surgery."

Dr. STORRAR seconded the motion. He said the principleupon which he opposed the clause was that it was the enuncia-tion of a truism. Every man with common sense must knowthat was the object of examinations ; else why have them at all ?Mr. SYME supported the motion. It was an absurdity, he 1

said, to suppose that young men leaving the schools were to beexperienced practitioners in medicine and surgery. All theyshould do as teachers was to put students in the way of be-coming efficient.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD moved, as an amendment, that Clause 2 ishould stand. He did not agree with Mr. Syme in saying thatthey were not to send out men competent to practise. They I’sent out a man at the age of twenty-one from any of the licens- iing boards, and at twenty-two he might be in the army or navy, I,or in any country district, and there the very first thing hemight be called upon to do was to perform some operation in-volving practical knowledge of a most serious nature. He be-lieved the examination of students in practical matters hadbeen greatly neglected. They should encourage examination I

by the application of tests : in anatomy, by examination uponthe body; in surgery, by taking the student to the hospitaland making him diagnose surgical diseases, and also performsurgical operations on the dead body. If they did not do thatthey were not furnishing the student with what he would re- t

quire at the very outset of his practice. With regard to medi-cine, what was the value of vivra voce examinations unless theytook the student to the hospital and made him diagnose acase, describe the pathology of the disease, and the mode oftreatment ? He looked upon the recommendation as a most iimportant one, because if they had any power at present, it Iwas the power of moral suasion, and of showing what they Iconsidered of great importance ; if, on the contrary, they putthe recommendation in their report of last year and now

dropped it, the public and the licensing boards would lookupon such suggestions as of no importance at all.

Dr. PARKES seconded the amendment.The amendment was negatived, seven voting for and eleven

against it.The motion was then carried, eleven voting for and seven

against it.Dr. WOOD asked for the names to be taken dow-n.Majority: Dr. Acland, Dr. Embleton, Dr. Storrar, Mr. Syme,

Dr. Thomson, Dr. Smith, Mr. Hargrave, Dr. Leet, Dr. Apjohn,Dr. Corrigan, Dr. Sharpey, and Dr. Stokes.Minority: Dr. Alderson, Mr. Arnott, Mr. Cooper, Dr. Paget,

Dr. Wood, Dr. Fleming, and Dr. Parkes.Clause 2 was therefore omitted.On Clause 3—’’ That the professional examination for any

licence be divided into two parts ; the first embracing theprimary or fundamental branches of medicine, and the secondthe branches directly connected with the practice of medicineand surgery; that the former be not undergone till after theclose of the winter session of the second year of professionalstudy, and the latter, or final examination, not till after theclose of the winter session of the fourth year of such study."Mr. HARGRAVE proposed-" As the Council has decided the

important questions of registration, age for licence to practise,and professional study, that the rest of the clauses on educa-tion be postponed until the next session."The motion was not seconded.

Dr. STORRAR proposed the adoption of the clause.Dr. A. WOOD did not see how it could stand after the last

resolution.Dr. STORRAR said he would move that Clause 3 be adopted

down to the words "medicine and surgery."Dr. SMITH seconded the motion. He said the course sug-

gested was exactly what was in operation in the schools ofDublin.

Dr. FLEMING moved as an amendment, That Clause 3 ofthe report be adopted as thus amended-viz.: "That theprofessional examination for any licence be divided into twoparts ; the first embracing the primary or fundamentalbranches of medicine, and the second the branches directlyconnected with the practice of medicine and surgery; thatthe former be not undergone till after the close of the wintersession of the second year of professional study, and the latter,or final examination, not till after the close of the prescribedperiod of professional study."Mr. ApNOTT seconded the amendment.Dr. STORRAR said if the Council agreed to the amendment

he would withdraw his motion.The motion was withdrawn and Dr. Fleming’s amendment

stood as the substantive motion.It was put to the Council and carried nem. con.On Clause 4,-" That the examination in chemistry, botany,

and natural history may be undergone at an earlier period,"Dr. STORRAR said the word the" implied that there must

be an examination in natural history. He proposed that theclause be adopted with the omission of the word "the."j Dr. SHARPEY seconded the motion.

i Dr. ACLAND suggested that the word " physics should beadded, making it "examination in physics, chemistry, botany,and natural history."

Dr. STORRAR said in the scheme suggested by the committeethey contemplated the introduction of physics into the pre-liminary examination.

‘ Dr. ApjoHN was opposed to the examination in chemistrybeing placed so early. It would require at least two yearsbefore a student could pass the examination.Mr. SYME thought that chemical studies should be com-

menced early, but the students should not undergo examina-tion till a later period in the course of study.I Dr. ACLAND proposed, as an amendment, that the word" physic’s" should be added.Dr. STORRAR was quite willing to insert the word in the

clause as proposed.The amendment was then withdrawn

t Dr. WOOD proposed, as an amendment, that Clause 4 beadopted, omitting the word ’’chemistry’’ and adding the word’ physics." He said he considered chemistry to be the funda-, mental study in the course of a professional career, and itwould be an injury to the students if it was thought theycould attain to even a modicum of chemistry before theybegan their professional study.Dr. SHARPEY said Dr. Andrew Wood objected to encouragingstudents to pass a chemistry examination before they com-menced medical studies. The motion was not to that effect atall : it was that they might be examined in chemistry beforethe first professional examination, and not before the com-mencement of professional study.

Dr. WOOD said his amendment would stand thus-" ThatClause 4 stand as follows : ’ ‘ That the examination in physics,botany, and natural history may be undergone at an earlierperiod than the first professional examination.’ "

Dr. APJOHN seconded the amendment. He was very muchin favour of excluding chemistry altogether from the resolu-tion.

Dr. PAGET said if chemistry came to be a subject of generaleducation in the country he should not think it necessary toprevent a medical student passing his examination in chemistrytill the end of the second year of medical study, but wouldallow those who were fit to do so to pass their examinationsomewhat earlier. It was only a permissive clause-not com-pulsory.

Dr. THOMSON thought they might say, "examinations inelementary chemistry;" and then an examination upon theapplication of chemistry to medicine would be afterwardsundergone. He was quite satisfied that it was impossible fora student to obtain from the course of general chemistry thesort of information which was most required by him. It wouldbe much more advantageous for medical students to study ashort course of elementary chemistry, and to pursue the studyafterwards.

Dr. ACLAND thought it would be a positive hardship on the

430

students to attempt to lay down a sweeping clause that per-sons who had ability, energy, and industry beyond the averageof medical men in certain parts of scientific study should bedebarred from choosing the time for passing examinations inthose studies.The amendment was put to the Council and carried, elevenvoting for it and seven against it.The amendment then stood as the substantive motion.Dr. THOMSON moved as an amendment,-" That the words !

elementary chemistry’ be inserted,"Dr. PAGET seconded the amendment. He thought that if

the student were required to wait till the second year beforebeing allowed to pass an examination in elementary chemistry,it would prove a great discouragement to the study of chemis- Itry throughout the country as a subject of general education.

Dr. APJOHN objected to the proposition on the ground thatit involved as a matter of necessity a second examination.

Dr. CHRISTISON asked if it was Dr. Thomson’s intention tomove that there should be a subsequent examination in ad-

Ivanced chemistry.Dr. THOMSON said he would leave that to the Council.Dr. Thomson’s amendment was then put and lost, seven Ivoting in its favour and nine against it.The motion was then carried. ,

On the motion of Dr. ANDREW WOOD, the Council resumedfor the purpose of receiving reports from the Committee onGeneral Education and the Committee on the Amendment ofthe Medical Acts. These reports were read, and ordered tobe entered on the minutes. ,

The Council resolved itself into a Committee on Education,and proceeded with the consideration of the report of the ISelect Committee.

Dr. STORRAR moved the adoption of Clause 5 of Section 4, Irelative to examinations,—" That the professional examinationsbe conducted both in writing and orally, and that they bepractical in all branches in which they admit of being so." (

Dr. SHARPEY seconded the motion. !Dr. CORRIGAN said his experience of written examinations i

in the practice of medicine was that they were not useful. Astudent in writing might avoid going into matters that he did ’Inot understand, and the examiners had the trouble of going i

over the subject again. He would rather leave the questionto the decision of the examining bodies themselves. He wouldmove as an amendment, "That the professional examinationsbe practical in all branches in which they admit of being so ;

- - and that, with a view of promoting the accuracy of professional ’,examinations, the final boná fide examination be public so faras admitting graduates and licentiates of the licensing body."

Dr. CHRISTISON said the amendment involved two distinctrecommendations, and suggested that it should be divided.

Dr. PARKES said his experience differed from that of Dr.Corrigan. Many men, from their special constitution were notfit to undergo a vivâ voce examination. Besides, such exami-nations often wanted the detiniteness and depth of examina-tions in writing. He hoped that Dr. Corrigan would permitthe recommendation to remain as it stood, in order that theexamining bodies might adopt the plan of examining in writingas well as orally.Mr. ARxoTT considered oral examinations preferable to

written ones, but he would leave the matter to the discretionof the licensing bodies.

Dr. CORRIGAN said he would withdraw his objection withregard to written examinations, and would simply adhere tothe latter part of his amendment relating to publicity.

Dr. CHRISTISON said everything that had been hitherto ad-vanced in reference to that subject had rested upon entirelytheoretical grounds. Nothing had been said by Dr. Corriganor his friends to show that any practical advantages resultedfrom the system adopted in Ireland. There was one mode,however, of practically testing the question, to which he wouldcall the attention of the Council. Reports had been laid beforethe Council from the army and navy medical boards to whichgreat importance had been attached; but no one had, as yet,tried to turn them to a useful account. He (Dr. Christison)had examined the statistics supplied in those reports withspecial reference to the candidates coming from bodies wherethe examinations were public and from those in which theexaminations were private; taking the three centres, London,Edinburgh, and Dublin. In the army examinations, 25 percent. of the qualifications from London had been rejected;from Edinburgh, 23 ; and from Dublin, 22. But excludingth,3 candidates from the Queen’s University, where the exami-nation was not in public, the per-centage from Dublin wouldbe 25. The results, therefore, of the two modes of examina-

tion appeared to be practically the same. In the navy reportthe result was very similar, except that the number of rejec-tions was larger on the whole: that might be owing to thecircumstance that a lower class of practitioners entered thenavy. The per-centages of rejections from London, Edinburgh,and Dublin were respectively 48, 44, and 45. Taking the twoservices together, he found that there were 155 qualificationsproduced by the different candidates from licensing bodiesconducting their examinations in private ; and of these therewere 34 rejections, or 22 per cent. From the bodies examiningin public there were 124 qualifications ; and the number of re-jections was 35, or 28 per cent. He wished to protect himselfagainst being supposed to attach so great consequence to theaccuracy of the facts brought before them as to believe thatthose numbers furnished the means of a perfectly true com-parison ; but he thought they might be taken as indicatingthat the results of the two modes of examination were prac-tically the same.

Dr. CORRIGAN was greatly surprised at the remarks madeby Dr. Christison, and at the course he had adopted in takingthe examinations of the army and navy medical boards andtheir results, as indicating in any way the efficiency of theexamining bodies from whom the candidates went up. He(Dr. Corrigan) would broadly lay down the proposition thatthe very worst and lowest examining bodies in the kingdommight present the greatest number of successful candidates atthe army and navy boards. If a young man was preparing forthe army examination, he would seek his diploma where hecould get it cheapest, just as he would buy a ticket for the

opera. The diplomas from all the examining bodies were ofequal value in enabling the candidate to get into the armyservice ; and it was not likely that a candidate would pay fortyguineas in London for a privilege which could be secured forfifteen guineas in Edinburgh. It was obvious, therefore, thatthe worst examining body in the kingdom might absolutelyreturn the greatest number of successful candidates to the

army examinations.i Dr. SHARPEY : The question is as to the proportion.Dr. CORRIGAN said he did not see the difference. The onlyobject of the candidate desiring to enter the army service wasto obtain a diploma which should entitle him to be examined;and he would naturally seek it at the cheapest place. If the

proportions of the candidates rejected by a particular body boreany relation to the number of the rejected candidates in thearmy board, the test brought forward by Dr. Christison mightbe an accurate one. But what was the fact ? He found thata body standing as high, or perhaps higher than the others,rejected only 8 out of 100 in its general examination; whileanother body rejected 20 per cent. of its candidates. Withregard to another body, 37 per cent. were rejected in the armylist; but of those going up for civil examination, only 8 per

! cent. were rejected. He contended that no satisfactory com-parison could be drawn from the returns in question. Thelicence of the Apothecaries’ Society in Dublin was sold for10s. 6d.; while the price in London was forty guineas.

Dr. PAGET thought there was a fallacy in Dr. Christison’stest, but not that pointed out by Dr. Corrigan. The real fal-lacy was that there was no assurance, but very much the con-

trary, that the persons who presented themselves to the armyand navy boards were fair average specimens of the holdersof the licences or diplomas of the different bodies. At the

present time the army and navy medical services were notpopular, and it was probable that the gentlemen presentingthemselves were not by any means average specimens of thoseholding the diplomas of the licensing bodies. If that was thefact, it would follow that the bodies who granted the largestnumber of diplomas would send up the largest number of in-efficient men-men whose prospects might be poor in relationto private practice, and who would be more likely to presentthemselves to the army and navy medical services. The Col-lege of Surgeons in London, for instance, granted a muchlarger number of diplomas than any other body, and might ofcourse be expected to allow inadvertently to escape a largernumber of inefficient men. The number passed at the lastyear’s examination was 485, and out of 485 tons of ore onemight expect more dross than out of 100 tons.i Dr. ANDREW WOOD said he should not have offered any ob-servations but for the fact that some of the statements madeby Dr. Corrigan might mislead the public, and lead them to

! imagine that the Scotch bodies systematically undersold theEnglish and Irish bodies. He was unable to follow Dr. Cor-

rigan’s argument with reference to some bodies selling theirdiplomas cheaper than others. He did not think that the

money test should be applied in ascertaining the value of-

431

diplomas. The test of the value of a diploma was the educa- z’

tion required and the course of examination pursued. If theEdinburgh bodies charged no more than was necessary to re-munerate the examiners reasonably and pay the other expenses,he thought it was rather in their favour that they did not over-charge the student and put the surplus in their own pockets.He was glad that Dr. Christison had drawn attention to thetables furnished by the army and navy medical boards, be-cause, if they were minutely examined, it would be found thatone body which examined in private had a very small numberof rejections, whilst another which bragged of its public exa-minations had a much larger number of rejections.

Dr. CORRIGAN: What are the prices of the diplomas respec-tively ?

Dr. ANDREW WOOD : I do not care a fig about that. I donot see how it bears upon the value of the diplomas themselves.The amendment was then put and lost, four voting in its

favour and twelve against it.The following clauses were then successively adopted with-

out discussion :-" That the professional examinations be held by the several

licensing bodies, except in special cases, at stated periods, to bepublicly notified."

’’ That returns from the licensing bodies in Schedule A bemade annually, on the Ist of January, and in the subjoinedform, to the General Medical Council, stating the number andnames of the candidates who have passed their first as well astheir second examinations, and the number of those who havebeen rejected at the first and second examinations respectively ;and that the registrar forward a sufficient number of forms,with a notice for their being returned, in due time."

The Council then adjourned.

THURSDAY, APRIL 13TK.The minutes of the previous meeting were read and con-

firmed.Dr. ANDREW ZVooD brought up the report of the Committee

on Amendment of the Medical Acts. The report stated thatthe Committee had taken into consideration all the importantclauses of that Act, and that Mr. Ouvry, the Solicitor of theCouncil, had prepared, in accordance with the resolutions ofthe Committee, the following draft of an amended Bill.

DRAFT OF BILL TO AMEND THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1858.

Whereas the Medical Act, 1858, has been found ineffectualto enable persons requiring medical aid to ascertain who arequalified practitioners, and it is desirable to amend the saidAct in several respects :Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most excellent

11 ajesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lordsspiritual and temporal and Commons in the present Parliamentassembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :-

1. This Act may for all purposes be cited as " The MedicalAmendment Act, 1865."

2. This Act shall take effect from the passing thereof.3. The following sections of the Medical Act, 1858, shall be

and the same are hereby repealed-viz., Sect. 14 and Sect. 40,but without prejudice to any proceedings which may be pend-ing under such sections or any of them.

4. It shall be the duty of the registrars to keep their respectiveregisters correct, in accordance with the provisions of this Actand the orders and regulations of the General Council, and toerase the names of all registered persons who shall have died,or who, having ceased to practise, shall desire to have theirnames removed from the Register, and from time to time toregister all alterations in the addresses or qualifications of thepersons registered under the Medical Act, 1858. The regis-trars, in these respects, may act upon such evidence as may

appear to them sufficient, subject to any rules or regulationswhich the General Council may make thereon. And, for thepurposes aforesaid, the registrar may write a letter to anyregistered medical practitioner, addressed to him according tohis registered address, to inquire whether he has ceased topractise or has changed his residence ; and if the answer tosuch letter be that the person has ceased to practise and desireshis name to be removed from the Register, or if no answer bereturned to such letter within the period of six months fromthe sending of the letter, it shall be lawful to erase the nameof such person from the Register. Provided always that anyname which may be erased by the registrars may be restoredby the direction of the General Council. 1 person whosename has been erased from the Register by order of the Gene-ral Council or any Branch Council shall be re-registered, eitheron the original or any new qualification, except by the directionof the General Council or Branch Council, as the case may be.

, 5. Any person practising medicine or surgery, or being en-gaged in the treatment of diseases or injuries, not being regis-i tered under this Act, who shall take or make use of any of thetitles or designations enumerated in Schedule A to this Act,or that of physician, surgeon, doctor, professor of medicine,professor of surgery, or any other title, name, or designationused by or used to distinguish duly qualified practitioners inmedicine or surgery, shall, upon a, summary conviction, beliable to a penalty not exceeding 20 for each offence.

6. The words qualified to be," in the 7th section of theMedical Act, 1858, shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

7. It shall, notwithstanding anything in the Medical Act,1858, contained, be lawful for her Majesty, by charter, to

grant to the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, theRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and the Faculty of Phy-sicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, or any or either of them,power to institute and hold examinations for the purpose oftesting the fitness of persons to practise as dentists who maybe desirous of being so examined, and to grant certificates ofsuch fitness.

The committee call attention to the changes in the presentMedical Act which are proposed in the Draft Amended Bill :-

Preamble.—The preamble to the Act as it at present standssays : " Whereas it is expedient that persons requiring medicalaid should be enabled to distinguish qualified from unqualifiedpractitioners." "

[After explaining the reasons which induced the committeeto adopt the various alterations proposed, the report went onto state :-]In reference to the various questions specially referred to

them by the Council, the committee have to report:

I In reference to the amending of Sections 15 and 31, withthe view of securing that all persons to be placed on theRegister should have been duly educated, tested, and qualifiedin all branches of the profession, whether medical or surgical,the committee are of opinion that it is highly desirable thatevery medical practitioner should have a complete or doublequalification. They see difficulties, however, in the way, forthe present, of framing compulsory clauses which would securethat important object. They would, however, point out thatby Section 19 of the Medical Act, which is a permissory sec-tion, powers have been provided by which any two or more ofthe licensing bodies may unite and co-operate in conducting

examinations required for qualifications to be registered underthe Act. Were this course carried out in London and inDublin as it has already been successfully carried out in Scot-land, the committee believe that in this way, without the

necessity of compulsory legislation, the great object would beeffected of combining and concentrating the licensing bodies,to the relief of the student, and the advantage of the pro-fession and the public.

It has been proposed to amend Section 18 by a(t(tiii(Y to itthe following words, or words to the same effect-viz.:"And may also inspect the written answers of the candi-I dates, and report concerning the examinations and answers

to the General Council ; and to the persons deputed by theGeneral Council as aforesaid, in such numbers as may be de-termined by the General Council, with the approval of one ofher 4lajesty’s principal Secretaries of State, there shall bepaid such fees for services and such reasonable travellingexpenses as shall from time to time be allowed by the GeneralCouncil and approved by the Commissioners of her 1_Tajesty’sTreasury ; and the said payments shall be made out of theresidues of the moneys annually received for carrying this Actinto execution, after defraying the expenses of the GeneralCouncil and the Branch Councils, and, if necessary, out of

432

further moneys to be provided for the said purpose by vote of IParliament. "

The committee do not consider this amendment either

necessary or expedient. The Branch Councils have the powerunder the Act as at present to visit the examinations of thelicensing bodies, or to depute any person or persons to do so ;they have also the power, as the committee are advised byMr. Ouvry, to remunerate the visitors of the examinations

Ifrom the funds contributed under the Act. The committeeconsider that it would be inexpedient to go to Parliament toask a supplementary money grant for the purpose. They trustthat ere long the expense of the meetings of the Council willbe diminished, and that there will be sufficient funds to meetthe expenses of visitation in any form that may be deemed inecessary. iThe committee, after considering the penal sections of the I

Act, do not recommend that application should be made to iParliament for stronger powers to be given to magistratesadministering the Act, or for higher penalties. The committeebelieve that if the clause proposed in lieu of Section 40 prove eeffective, the present powers and penalties will be foundadequate. IIn regard to the question of the registration of licentiates in Idental surgery, the committee, having given that considerationto the memorial of the dental surgeons to which it is justlyentitled, are of opinion that it is inexpedient to place upon theMedical Register dental practitioners not otherwise qualified;holding as they do that that would constitute a further ob-stacle, in addition to those at present existing, to the securingthat all persons whose names shall be inserted in the MedicalRegister shall be fully qualified to practise all branches of theirprofession.The committee, in conclusion, suggested a form of memorial

to be addressed by the president, in the name of the Council,to the Home Secretary, requesting his attention to the pro-posed alterations, and asking for an interview at an earlyperiod.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD, in moving the adoption of the report,said he felt that he had been pressed into the service, andplaced in a position which he was scarcely qualified to fill ; andhe felt this the more when he remembered that he succeededhis friend Dr. Corrigan, who had with so much perseveranceand ability carried on the business of the amendment of theMedical Act during a number of years. He (Dr. Wood) hadonly undertaken the duty at the solicitation of the Council.A considerable portion of the report dealt with matters onwhich the Council had already come to a decision. TheCouncil, for instance, had decided that the educational clausesshould stand as at present. He confessed that he regrettedthat decision, but he had no other alternative than that ofacquiescing in it. The amendment of Clauses 31 and 40 hadalso been decided on. He proposed to refer first to thosepoints on which the committee had not thought it desirable torecommend any alteration. The first had reference to the re-quirement of a double qualification on the part of all generalmedical practitioners. It was a great matter that, duringthe present session, the Council had unanimously stated itsopinion that it was highly desirable that no man should beplaced upon the Medical Register who had not been educatedand tested in every branch of the profession. The difficultywas to frame clauses in that direction without disfranchisingthe College of Surgeons of England and the Apothecaries’Company. If they attempted to pursue such a course theywould have a powerful opposition by those two bodies ; and itwould be utterly useless to expect, in the face of such oppo-sition, to carry a Bill in Parliament. Under existing circum-stances the committee, with every desire to attain the objectin view, was not prepared to recommend the Council to applyfor the requisite powers. The Council, however, was boundto urge and encourage those bodies, both in Ireland and Eng-land, which had not hitherto taken advantage of Clause 19 ofthe Medical Act, enabling them to unite in giving a completequalification, to adopt that course, so that no man might be onthe Register who was not fully qualified; thus doing away withthe necessity for compulsory legislation at a future period.With regard to the proposed amendment of Section 18, it wasgenerally felt, even by Dr. Sharpey, who proposed the amend-ment, that the Council already possessed the necessary powersas to visiting the examinations, or deputing persons to visit themand remunerating them for their labour. With regard to thatpart of the proposed amendment which related to an applicationto Parliament for a money grant, the committee thought itwould be very inexpedient to make such an application. Itwouldbe a great obstacle in the way of getting the Bill through, and

even if the application were in itself desirable lie had greatdoubts whether under the circumstances it ought to be made.It was, however, totally unnecessary, because the funds atthe command of the Council were amply sufficient to carryout any useful object it might have in view. This would beevident by the revenue and expenditure of the Council duringthe last few years. There had been, doubtless, a very large-expenditure on account of the meetings of the General Council;but that was to a considerable extent inevitable, in consequenceof the Medical Act first coming into operation, and the trans-action of a large amount of business attendant upon it -setting the registration going, and indicating to the licensingbodies the views of the Council upon questions of education.The Council, however, would not be required to undo in oneyear what it had accomplished in the previous year ; andif it gave forth a plain and intelligible statement of its views,on education, little remained for it to do but to watch carefullythe progress of events, and to suggest from time to time suchamendments as circumstances might indicate ; calling uponthose bodies to publish periodically the regulations underwhich they gave their qualifications, and stirring them up torescue themselves from the opprobrium now resting upon mostof them, from the fact that they sent forth so many persons.to practise medicine and surgery who were found inadequateto the discharge of their duties. With regard to the recom-mendation to apply for stronger powers to be given to magis-trates, or for higher penalties, the committee had not adoptedthe recommendation. It was no part of the policy of theCouncil to appear to do that which might seem tyrannical orinterfere with the liberties of the subject. The matter had beentaken into consideration in consequence of a memorial pre-sented to the Council on the subject. With reference to thememorial from the dentists, the committee considered it to beone deserving its careful consideration, being couched inrespectful terms, and ably setting forth the case presented tothe Council. However much they might wish that the countrymight be supplied with good dentists, it was possible that thatboon might be attained at a grievous loss. He held that

the persons who were on the Register should be qualified forall branches, and the putting of any persons on the Registerin specialties, and thus leading the public to believe that they

i might consult them as medical practitioners, would, in hisopinion, be a serious blot upon the Medical Act. There was a

proposition that the dentists might be included in a separateregister. There appeared something feasible in that proposal,but he thought that the dentists should get an Act of Parlia-ment and a separate register for themselves. In the mean-

time the Council would be taking a step in a retrogTade direc-tion if it added to the specialties already appearing upon theRegister. With regard to the draft of the Bill to amend the Medical Act, the gist of it was to be found in the proposedamendment of Clause 40. In fact, but for the necessity of gettingthat amendment or some -similar one introduced, there wouldbe no need to apply for anything like an amended Act. The

Act, as it stood, had been defeated again and again ; there hadbeen the most discordant decisions with reference to Clause 40;and those who desired to look into the subject might refer to a

; series of excellent articles that had appeared in THE LANCET. within the last two or three months, in which a number of thecases were cited. In applying to the Home Office they ought: to be prepared to bring forward a number of such cases,[and’

to show in what respects the Act had failed. In one instance’

a man had had the audacity to assume a medical title, adding,; " Not registered nnder the Medical Act. " T was impossible,’ under the present Act, to reach a man adopting that course.

There was also a case in Edinburgh, in which a man calledi ! himself " doctor," but constantly exhibited pictures in whichthe medical faculty was insulted in the grossest way. One ofIhis pictures represented a skeleton bleeding a patient to death.’ The pictures were varied from time to time, and there weret always persons round the shop studying the different speci-

mens of artistic skill there exhibited. Such a man could notibe reached; but if the proposed amendment were adopted, hewould be compelled to drop his title of doctor, and the public. ! would see that he was not a qualified practitioner. The last3 of the proposed amendments was simply to enable the College- of Surgeons in Edinburgh, the College of Surgeons in Ireland,3 and the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, to givei dental diplomas in the same manner as the College of Surgeonst of London.

1 i Dr. EMBLETOX seconded the motion for the adoption of thet report.1 i Dr. CoRRieAN said he desired to move as an amendment,-1 , " That the consideration of the report on the proposed amend-

433

ments of the Medical Act he postponed till the next meeting B’of this Council (" Oh ! oh !"), inasmuch as the resolution ofthis Council of l2ay 4th, 1864, directed the attention of the IBranch Councils only to Clauses 20, 31, and 40, while in the Iamended Bill now proposed for adoption, amendments are Iintroduced which have never previously come under the con-sideration of this Council, and no opportunity is afforded to Ithe several licensing bodies to take these amendments into Iconsideration." " He presumed that the "Oh! Ohs !" whichgreeted his proposal to postpone the consideration of theamendments arose from a belief that it was possible to carrythe Bill this session. (Hear, hear.) He believed there was no Igreater delusion than that. The Bill would no sooner make Iits appearance than applications would be made to the Secre-tary of State from many of the licensing bodies to postponeproceeding with a Bill containing amendments which hadeither been kept secret from them, or had never been broughtto their knowledge; and if there was a single application tothat effect from any licensing body in the empire it would besufficient to stop the Bill. He had no hesitation in proposingthe amendment which lie had read, because, as Dr. Woodhad remarked, he had been a long time one of the mostindefatigable and laborious members of the Council in en- Ideavouring to carry out amendments to the Medical Act; but, Ito tell the truth, from the way in which those amendments ilad been met lie had given up the task in utter despair. Aftersome considerable discussion the Council resolved last yearthat it was impossible, at that late period of the session, toenter upon a full consideration of so wide and important asubject, and it was agreed that the Branch Councils should berequested, in the interval between that session and the suc-ceeding one, to consider Clauses 20, 31, and 40, and that theCouncil should meet early the next year for the considerationof the whole subject. He believed that the understandingwas that they were to meet before the assembling of Parlia-ment, but that intention had not been carried out.The PRESIDENT said that no such intention was expressed

by the Council at its last session.Dr. CORRIGAN believed that there was such an under- i

standing.The PRESIDENT said if any intention of that kind had been

expressed he certainly should have acted upon it.Dr. CORRIGAN said that the observations of the Branch

Councils had been confined solely to the consideration of the Ithree clauses he had named. As soon as the Council met in z,the present session, he proposed that the whole Act should be itaken into consideration clause by clause, believing that theconsideration of only three clauses might lead to an imperfectlyconsidered Bill, which would not command attention from theLegislature. Dr. Quain was one of the most able opponents ofthat resolution, which was negatived by the Council, the sup-position being that, by confining their attention to three

clauses, there would be no doubt of their obtaining a legisla-tive enactment during the present session. Dr. Quain, how-ever, subsequently proposed the appointment of a committee" to report on any further amendments which may seem to berequired in the Medical Act." The committee was appointed,and had brought up a report for an amendment of the wholeAct, containing some proposals which had never been beforesubmitted to their consideration, and those proposals theywere now called upon to adopt, and send to the Home Secre-tary for his approval. With regard to Section 14, it was pro-posed by the committee that " the registrars in these respectsmay act upon such evidence as may appear to them sufficient,subject to any rules or regulations which the General Councilmay make thereon." That was virtually putting the wholeprofession under the arbitrary powers of the Council. TheCouncil might make a regulation that the evidence shouldnot be sufficient to ensure registration unless the examina-tion was both oral and written, or any other rule, howeverabsurd, and the whole profession would be bound by it.He considered it was a dangerous power to entrust to theCouncil, and that the Branch Councils would not submit to it.With reference to the clause relating to dental diplomas, he’thought that before adopting it the Council was bound to con-sult all the licensing bodies in England. Probably some ofthem would not take advantage of such a power ; but it cer-tainly ought to be offered to them. If the privilege of licensingdentists was given to three colleges of surgeons, he did not seewhy it should be denied to the universities and the colleges ofphysicians. He thought it would be better not to give theprivilege at all; but he did not see why it should be bestowedupon some bodies and withheld from others. There was aportion of the committee’s report which it was certainly very

hard to bear. In alluding to Section 19, permitting any tivoor more of the licensing bodies to co-operate in conducting ex-aminations, the committee stated : ’’ Were this course carriedout in London and in Dublin, as it has already been success-fully carried out in Scotland, the committee believe that inthis way, without the necessity of compulsory legislation, thegreat object would be effected of combining and concentratingthe licensing bodies, to the relief of the student, and the ad-vantage of the profession and the public." Were the Englishand Irish members prepared to adopt such a statement asthat’?-to go to the Secretary of State and tell him that alltheir enlightenment must come from the north of the Tweed?One of the most important portions of the Bill was Section 20,as to the power of enforcing the regulations of the Council ;but that section had never been touched by the committee intheir report.

Dr. WooD said it was not remitted to the committee forconsideration. A resolution on the subject was adopted bythe Council after a day’s discussion.

Dr. CORRIGAN said it was the duty of the committee to re-port on whatever amendments might be required.The PRESIDENT said that the Council had distinctly resolved

that Section 20 of the Medical Act stand as at present.Dr. CORRIGAN said it was afterwards decided that the com-

mittee should inquire into what further amendments wereneeded. He should be glad to have an Act passed during thepresent session, if a proper one could be obtained; but hecould not be a party to sending forward a memorial such asthat proposed by the committee, and to amendments whichaffected seriously the interests and privileges of the bodywhich he represented. At any rate he could not give hisassent without consulting his constituency. For all thesereasons he had come to the conclusion that no Act could bepassed during the present year.

Dr. SMITH seconded the amendment, which was put to theCouncil and negatived, three voting in its favour and thirteenagainst it.On the motion of Dr. QUAIN, seconded by Dr. APJOHN, it

was resolved-" That the report of the committee be consi-dered clause by clause, except such clauses as have beenalready decided on by the Council."The preamble of the amended Act and the first three clauses

were successively adopted without discussion.Dr. WOOD moved, and Dr. QUAIN seconded, the adoption

of the 4th clause in lieu of Section 14.The PRESIDENT suggested that the registrar should be re-quired to send two letters instead of one, within the prescribedperiod of six months, before erasing any name from the Re-gister.The proposal was assented to, and the clause was adopted

with the suggested alteration.Clause 5 of the amended Act, having been previously adopted

by the Council, was not made the subject of any further mo-tion. Clause 6 was adopted without discussion.With reference to Clause 7, Dr. WOOD said he was quite

willing, if Dr. Corrigan still objected to it, to withdraw itfrom the amended Bill. The clause was accordingly withdrawn.The report of the committee was then adopted, with the

exception of that portion relating to the granting of dental

diplomas, and the latter part of the clause in reference to the

double qualification, commencing with the words, ’ were thiscourse carried out in London and in Dublin," &c.Mr. ApNOTT moved, as an amendment, that a separatedental register be established; but, not being seconded, the

amendment fell to the ground.[The propriety of rendering it imperative on druggists in.

prescribing to follow the directions of the British Pharma-copoeia, was next discussed; after which the report of theCommittee on Medical and Surgical Practice by Chemists and

Druggists and on the Pharmacy Bills was read.] ]SATURDAY, APRIL laTH.

The PRESIDENT informed the Council that a deputation hadwaited upon the Under Secretary of State for the Home

Department, and found that he had given his close attentionto the proposed amendments of the Medical Act; and that theinterview was on the whole very satisfactory.A motion by Dr. STORRAR, to enable the holders of the de-

gree of Bachelor in Surgery conferred by any university to beplaced on the Register, was the subject of a lengthened debate.The prevailing feeling was against the introduction of newqualifications, and the motion was ultimately negatived.The report of the Pharmacopceia Committee was then con-

434

sidered, and a confident hope was expressed that the workwould be laid on the table at the next meeting of the Council.The report of the Committee on the subjects of General

Education was deferred till the next session.The following members were appointed by ballot to consti-

tute the Executive Committee :—Mr. Arnott, Dr. Acland, Dr. yPaget, and Dr. Sharpey.

MONDAY, APRIL 17TH.

The Council was engaged during the greater part of the dayin discussing the report of the Committee on the PharmacyBills, which was adopted with certain amendments.The report of the Committee on Returns received from the

Bodies in Schedule A, and the Registers of Medical Students,was adopted, as also that of the Finance Committee.The following resolution was agreed to :-" That it be delegated to the Executive Committee, in case I,

of the death or incapacity from illness of the Registrar, when Ithe Council is not in session, to appoint a person to perform,temporarily, the duties of Registrar."On the motion of Dr. CORRIGAN, the following resolution

was agreed to :-" That the correspondence, as now submitted, between the

Director-General of the Army Medical Department, the Secre-tary of State for War, the General Medical Council, and theKing and Queen’s College of Physicians in Ireland, be insertedin the Minutes ; and that the Registrar be requested to writeto the Secretary of State for War, enclosing a printed copy ofthe above, and explaining to his Lordship that the GeneralMedical Council are of opinion, for the reasons stated in thecorrespondence mentioned above, that initials, indicating theseveral medical qualifications which army surgeons possess,should be inserted after their names without distinction orpreference to one degree or licence over another, each surgeon,when he possesses more than one medical qualification, having,however, only one medical qualification appended to his name."Also,-" That a letter be addressed to the Director-General of the

Army Medical Department, requesting that he would directthe future returns from the army service to have columnsattached similar to those in the navy return, specifying insimilar detail the number of candidates and the heads underwhich the candidate failed to answer."

The usual formal resolutions were then passed, and the pro-ceedings terminated.

POOR-LAW MEDICAL RELIEF.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—I shall feel obliged by your giving insertion to theannexed circular letter from the Poor-law Board to the boardsof guardians, as it is a document of very considerable im-

portance.I should recommend the medical officers of each union to

meet, and, if possible, come to some definite decision as towhat should be considered " expensive medicines." Cod-liver ’,oil and quinine are named, and in addition to these I shouldsay opium, castor oil, sarsaparilla, leeches, and, perhaps, a fewother things might be added, but not too many for fear thatall may be rejected.

It may fairly be pointed out to the guardians that therecommendation of the Select Committee was made for thebenefit of the poor, as it was considered that, in consequenceof the expensive nature of many articles and the very lowsalaries paid to the medical officers, they could not alwaysafford to purchase them, and as a consequence the poor havenot had them to any very great extent ; therefore to attemptto reduce any of the salaries cannot be submitted to by themedical officers. Should any of the boards of guardians bedisposecl to find all the medicines for the poor, I should recom-mend the medical officers to second the proposal and submitto a general revision of their salaries.

I am, Sir, your obedient sarvant,RICHARD GRIFFIN12, Royal-terrace, Weymouth,

- April 15th, 1865.

Supply oj’Co(l-,7i?,e), Oil arazl Expensive Medicines.Poor-law Board, Whitehall, 12th April, 1863.

Sir,—I am directed by the Poor-law Board to state thatthey are desirous of drawing the attention of the guardians tothe question of the supply of medicines for the sick poor.

The Board transmitted to the guardians a copy of the reportof the Committee of the House of Commons on poor reliefshortly after it was printed, with the view of informing themof the opinions and recommendations of the Committee on theseveral points to which their inquiries had been directed.The Board think it right, however, now to bring more par-

ticularly under the notice of the guardians the followingresolution of the Committee relating to medical relief, viz. :-

’’ That there are no sufficient grounds for materially inter-fering with the present system of medical relief, which wasmade the subject of special and lengthened inquiries by SelectCommittees of this House in the years 1844 and 1854."That the recommendations of those committees were for

the most part carried out by the orders of the Poor-law Board,and the system of medical relief appears to be administeredwith general advantage. Your Committee, however, recom-mend that in future cod-liver oil, quinine, and other expensivemedicines, shall be provided at the expense of the guardians,subject to the orders and regulations of the Poor-law Board."The Board have repeatedly considered the recommendation

of the Committee relative to the supply of cod-liver oil,quinine, and other expensive medicines, with the view of

determining what measures should be taken by them to carryit into effect.

It does not appear to the Board that they can, with advan-tage, issue any general and positive regulation on the subjeet;and the Board are of opinion that much difficulty and em-barrassment might arise from a compulsory interference withthe arrangements for medical relief, which are in force underthe existing contracts. They request the guardians, however,to be good enough to consider whether an alteration in thosearrangements as regards the supply of the medicines referredto cannot be effected whenever a new appointment of a medi-cal officer is made, or, with the consent of the present medical

officers, during the continuance of their existing contracts.I With regard to the mode in which the proposed object canmost conveniently be effected, the Board are of opinion,-

1. That it may be advisable to provide a store of cod-liveroil at the workhouse, or at some other convenient places ofdeposit in the union, and to supply it to the sick poor on theprescription of the medical officers, through the relieving

officers, in the same way as wine or other extras recommended.,by the medical officers in the way of nourishn:ent are nowsupplied.

2. That quinine and other expensive medicines may be sup-plied,

Either by an order of the medical officer on a chemist, thecost of the medicines so ordered being paid for by the guard-ians to such chemist as goods or provisions supplied in relief ;Or by the medical officers themselves, who may send in an

account quarterly to the guardians of the cost of the medicinesin question which they may have supplied to their pauperpatients.The former plan may probably be convenient in the town

unions ; the latter in the country unions.Cod-liver oil and any other medicines intended to be so

supplied should be specified and excepted from the provisionsof the medical contract, which require generally that medicalofficers should themselves provide the requisite medicines andmedical appliances for their pauper patients.

I am, &c.,ENFIELD, Secretary.(Signed)

THE LLEWELLYN MEMORIAL, consisting of a monu-ment and of a Gothic window fitted with stained glass, has justbeen placed in Easton Church, Wilts. The monument consistsof a handsome pyramidal black marble slab, upon which isplaced a Latin cross in white marble, of prominent size; at thefoot rests a naval anchor and cable, with shot of varying size;and leaning against the side of the cross is the wand of Æscu-lapins. The monument bears the following inscription:-

The East 6Yinclow ani this Tablet are dedicatedto the memory of

DAVID HERBERT LLEWELLYN,youngest son of the Rev. David Llewellyn,

Minister of this Pariah.He was Surgeon of the Confederate war-steamer " Alabama;"

and after her engagementwith the Federal steamer "Kearsage,H off Cherbourg,nobly refusing to imperil the escape of the wounded,

he sank witil his ship,on the 19th of June, 186!., in the 26th year of his age.

Erected by voluntary contribution,. in admiration of his self-sacrificing courage.