604

With reference to your insinuations as to my professionalqualifications, it is unnecessary to do more than subscribe myself,

Your obedient servant,OCT. HAMMOND,

A- Member of the Royal College ofSurgeons in London; and a Licen-tiate of the Society of Apothecaries.

P.S.-I must beg the insertion of the above in your nextnumber.Andover, Nov. 26th, 1845.

,* MR. HADIMOND sadly miscalculates if he thinks that his

explanation will prove at all satisfactory to the profession. If

the Guardians had not known that a person was ready and willingto supply the place of Mr. Westlake, they would not have daredto suspend that gentleman from his office.-ED. L.

OCT. HAMMOND,A Member of the Royal College of

Surgeons in London; and a Licen-tiate of the Society of Apothecaries.

PROFESSIONAL GRADES AND DUTIES.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-Whatever emanates from the pen of Mr. Rumsey* on thequestion of medical politics, -whether given avowedly, or underhis quondam assumption, " RuRicoLA," is likely to receive anattentive consideration. It is this, then, that induces me to pointout what I believe to be the false position he has taken up in hisletter on the College Fellowship question, in THE LANCET forNov. 15th.

According to his own view of the case, he ought himself tohave been excluded from the fellowship even after examination.He would confer the title on no one who is directly or indirectlyan apothecary! The often mooted question then comes, Who is,and who is not, an apothecary ? To say nothing of practitionersprior to 1815, my own opinion is, that every licentiate of theHall is legally and actually an apothecary. He may be some-

thing in addition-a surgeon, or clergyman, if he will, - but hecannot be less. Clearly there is not a doubt upon the point, thatneither the act of prescribing nor that of dispensing makes aman an apothecary. If the former, physicians would be entitled;if the latter, druggists. " Once a captain always a captain," isan adage, and he who was surgeon-apothecary at Chesham- issurgeon-apothecary still, although he lives at Gloucester. Nordoes the way in which he chooses to be paid for his services alterthe question. It may, for aught I know, be something veryhigh-minded, very disinterested, to say that you must be paid inthis or that way, that your fee is honorary. But how would the

honorary-loving recipient of a patient’s fees look if the fees werehabituaily withheld. Unutterable things enough, I suspect.The fact, however, cannot and need not be concealed, that " thelabourer is worthy of his hire," and he who performs certainservices for another should be placed in a position to demandremuneration. But, after all, is there anything so shocking inthe mode of charging for "visits" as to justify the exclusion ofthe person from the fellowship? The very notion is ludicrous,and stultifies itself. To visit, is to attend upon : attendance maybe either at home or abroad. The physician or " pure" surgeonwho is consulted by a patient, attends on that patient. For hisattendance on the patient what does the physician or pure surgeonexpect?-Money. What does Mr. Wakle y expect for performingthe duties of coroner for Middlesex?-Money. What does SirJames Graham expect for doing the onerous and responsible duties,of Secretary of State? To say nothing of power-Money. Whatdo the clergy expect, and take care to get, for their holy aid ?-Money. lYnat does eve..,,- man expect who renders services to

another-what is he entitled to ?-Money. All seek it; a’ require it. There is nothing like it. The mare will not go without it. Is it not, then, the height of squeamishness and absurdity to ’,quarrel amongst ourselves about the mode of payment, and to asertthat one mode more than another justifies the exclusion of menof honour and intellect from scientific distinction!

But, then, to practise pharmacy that is bad indeed! A" surgeon," a pure, honourable man,- may plaster and can-

terize the dirty buttock of a beggar; his doing so will be a properand intellectual act, (?) and not render him unfit for collegiaterenown ; but if he cure indigestion, or irritation consequent onlocal disease, and, as a safer and better means of cure, make themedicine himself, and do not, as a consequence, render chamomile,- calomel, as I once heard a druggist’s assistant do, he becomes atonce a contaminated being, unfit to tread the portals of his college,or to bear a title which men of less experience than himself havehad thrust upon them! All this, however, is so self-evidently- absurd, that I r.eed not at present pursue the subject further, orapologize to Mr. Rumsey for dealing plainly with it.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,Nov. 16,1845. W. HEMSON DENHAM.W. HEMPSON DENHAM.* The address of Gloucester was accidemtally omitted from the letter of

Mr. Rumsey, page 548.-ED. L.

THE LISTS OF M.R.C.S. ENG, & L.S.A.’s.

HAVING ascertained that the name of the author of the followingletter is actually, as he states, in the lists of the College of Sur-

geons and Apothecaries’ Hall, we feel bound, as an act of justice,to give his communication full publicity.-ED. L.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,-In the columns of your last week’s journal, my name is

introduced in an article condemnatory of the department ofprofessional practice I have assigned myself, and, in additionthereto, appears a serious attack upon my character and conductin their moral and professional relations, wherein you state, byimplication, that my name is not to be found in the Hall or Collegelists. Common justice requires of you at least to correct thatmisrepresentation.-I became a member of the Hall in 1824,and of the College in 1827. The uncharitable misstatements ofyour " reviewer," as to the nature, titles, and tenour of mypubl;cations, I will not here dilate upon; they are before the

public, ard must speak for themselves. But I may be permittedto observe, that the spirit of my writings has been to unmaskthe empiricism you denounce, and to uphold the dignity of theprofession you charge me with dishorouring.

In pursuing my career in the route of circumstances as an

author and practitioner, I have by no unfair means solicited thesuffrages of the public. I have advocated no nostrum, insistedupon no exclusive skill or pretension; but, on the broad basisthat every or any branch of the art and science of medicine, whichI was legally qualified to practise, was as open to myself as well asto another, I chose that I considered most neglected, and whereinthe want of a qualified man was most felt by the public toantagonize the fearful empiricism which did and still prevails.That it is possible even the unenviable position I have taken upmay be and has been conducted honourabiy to the world, andcreditably by the individual addressing you, I fearlessly insistupon ; and, except in the fact of frequent announcements, (a mere

’ matter of enterprise, as evinced in your own columns, and by allmedical authors and publishers,) but which, in my case, constitutesthe serious offence, I challenge you, or any one breathing, to

’

prove me guilty of one single act of professional dishonour.I remain, Sir, your obedient Servaot, °

R. J. CULVERWELL, M.D., M.R.C.S., L.A.C., &c.’

21, Arundel-street, Strand, Nov. 24, 1845.

*,* It having been represented to us that another portion of. our last week’s REVIEW is open to misconstruction, we feel no

hesitation in stating, that we did not intend to refer to Messrs.

Mason and Dawson except as the authors and advertisers of the

works mentioned. On referring to the lists of the Colleges, we; find that they are Extra-Licentiates of the Royal College oft Physicians, Members of the College of Surgeons, and Licentiates’ of the Apothecaries’ Company. We certainly, in our review,r condemned the titles of their books, their modes of advertising,r and the works themselves, but we had no intention of imputing tot them that they were the authors of extortionate practices.

R. J. CULVERWELL, M.D., M.R.C.S., L.A.C., &c.

NEWS OF THE WEEK.

DISPENSING BY PARTICULAR DRUGGISTS.-TO theEditor.-SIR: Some reflections have appeared in THE LANCET,on the conduct of a medical man attaching to his prescriptions(whether by printing or otherwise) the name of the particulardruggist by whom he wishes those prescriptions to be com-

pounded. This is held to be unprofessional conduct. But what isto bedone in the case of a medical man who does notdispense medi-cines, but has always to send them to a druggist to be compounded.The probability is, that if the medical man in question does notdirect them to be taken to a particular chemist, they are certainto fall into the hands of another druggist-the patron, in these

parts, of medical men, who seek his fostering wings, and whoseinterest it is to injure that medical man’s practice who does notresort to his shop ? What avails attention, talent, or anythingelse, on the part of that surgeon, if the prescription is to fall intothe hands of a person who wiil scarcely hesitate to alter it, or todispense it with inferior drugs, and thus damage the reputationof the prescriber with his patients ? I ask, what is to be done insuch a case but to commit the prescription to the care of thosewho will correctly and carefully dispense it?

I am, Sir, yours, &c. DELTA. -Nov. 8th, 1845.

605

PLACENTA PRÆVIA.-TO the Editor.-Sir: Allowme, through the medium of your widely-circulated LANCET, toask for a little information concerning the removal of the pla-centa prior to the parturition of the unborn foetus. It appears,from cases illustrated at different times, that the umbilical cordhas been divided, and, with the placenta, removed, several hoursintervening between its expulsion and that of the fcetus. A casewas mentioned in THE LANCET, of November the 7th, where thefcetus was born, with safety, two hours after the placenta. Duringmy studies at St. George’s Hospital, I had a case where half anbour intervened between the birth of the one and the other, andthe child was born with safety. The supply of maternal bloodfor that period, and the changes which are asserted to be neces-sary for the continuance of fœtal life, were consequently sus-pended, owing to its being deprived of the benefits which resultfrom the maternal circulation. How is it (the question wouldnaturally be asked) that a child thus born is not in a perfect stateof asphyxia? Indeed, how is it that any symptoms, either ofanimal or organic life, are present ? This change which it isrequisite should take place in the afterbirth, is said by some to beexactly analogous to that which the blood undergoes during itscirculation through the adult lungs. These facts, therefore,appear to be diametrically opposed to the theory that ascribesanimal heat to the changes going on there.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,OCTAVIAN ROYLE, M.R.C.S.E.

To the Editor.-Sir : Many cases, tendino- much more to show the injustice of retrospective ’law," than that ofyour correspondent, " A SUBSCRIBER," published lately in THELANCET, might be produced, and also to show how unfair itwould be for the college diploma, in consequence of being datedbefore 1843, to be the only requisite claim for a Fellowship. Iknow a gentleman (and such cases must be known at the college)who, having been in the profession thirty-five years, a Licentiateof the Hall, in practice for himself during twenty-five years, andpossessing all the necesary certificates to entitle him to an ex-amination for a membership of the college, did not go for andreceive his diploma until since 1843. Now, to such a man (re-spectable as he has always been,) it must be very galling to seea young man exalted over him. Again, such a person having sorecently proved himself to be fit and capable to exercise the artand science of surgery," must be a more fit and proper person tobe admitted to a Fellowship than one who, twenty years ago,went through an examination. I would therefore submit, thatthe proper stipulation for a Fellowship would be, that everymember of the college (without reference to the date of hisdiploma) should be eligible, who has arrived at the age of fortyyears, and has always "demeaned himself honourably in thepractice of his profession, and to the utmost of his power main-tained the dignity and welfare of the college;" and of this he’should be required to bring proof. Pray, sir, give this your con-sideration, at the request of

A PERPETUAL SUBSCRIBER TO THE LANCET.

QUACKS AND LITERATURE.-To tlte Editor.-Sir :The remarks which appeared in the last LANCET upon the fearfullyimmoral and venemous productions of men whose names shall notpollute this paper, reflect upon you the greatest credit, not as amedical journalist alone, but as a man. Their terrible tendency is,indeed, but very little known, and I am perfectly confident that theeditors of many provincial journals are ignorant of the mischiefwhich results not alone from following the advice contained insuch productions, but of that which results from a simple perusalof them. I have recently been made acquainted with the case ofan individual who was most roughly handled by one of thesebiped reptiles, and it is fearful to contemplate what might, orra’.her would have been the result, had not the party had themoral courage to seek the assistance of his regular medical at-tendant. Though many months have elapsed, he now feels theeffects of his rough and expensive treatment. I enclose a batch0° advertisements, taken, as you will see, from the front page ofone paper; also, a long one from a provincial journal publishedlast Saturday.

I remain, Sir, yours, &c.,I remain, Sir, yours, &c.,MODESTAS.

*** The batch contains thirteen announcements of almost everyvariety of quackery to which books and pamphlets can be de-voted, and a most disgusting catalogue for the public eye it forms.The authors who can afford to pay so much to the newspapersmust even themselves be surprised at the existence of such a vastnumber of weak-minded people and fools in the community, as arenecessary to enable them to carry on such a game.

To the Editor.-Sir: Permit me to express, whatwill, no doubt, be the sentiment of every respectable member ofthe profession, and of the entire public, on reading THE LANCETof Nov. 22, deep gratitude for your masterly exposure of the filthyadvertisements which pollute our newspapers. In every part ofEurope that I have visited, the loathsome paragraphs of whichyou speak have been assigned by foreigners as a proof that theboasted morality of England was impudent hypocrisy ; and thatin sexual vice we were below every other civilized nation.

I am, Sir. your obedient servant, A. L. WIGAN.

CORRESPONDENTS.

A Member of the National Association.-ALL the discussionshave been conducted in secret, and the only two reports or

abstracts of speeches, that have ever been published by the Com-mittee, were directed against Mr. WARLEY. Every other speechhas not only been delivered in secret, but kept secret. The

discussions of all the other medical societies of London are opento the press and the public. Debates respecting a dislocatedt7tumb, or a fractured toe, are reported; but discussions whichrelate to matters of the highest importance in medical government,are held with CLOSED DOORS. Yet the members of the Associationsubmit to be thus treated!

A Practitioner in Southwark, considers that Dr. WEBSTER (ofDulwich) ought to be ejected from the chair of the BritishMedical Association, in consequence of his continuing to occupya seat in the LAWLESS COMMITTEE of the National Association,in defiance of a vote of the Council. The same correspondentsuggests that the names of the members of the Committee shouldbe published weekly, and that motions should be made for ex-punging them from the lists of all the medical societies of the

metropolis. He also wants to know what LITTE SMITH, ofDowgate-hill, now thinks of his honest colleagues in the Com-mittee." Really, full accounts of the misconduct of these insolent,audacious, and yet truculent traders in the rights of their pro-fessional brethren, would occupy an entire number of THE LAN-CET everyweek. It has now become certain that if the Associationis to accomplish a single useful object for the profession, thepresent committee must be cashiered.

An old Medical Reformer.-The deliberations of the ASSOCIATEDSURGEON APOTHECARIES were commenced in 1812, and all their

proceedings were conducted publicly.The altered communication of Dr. Roden did not reach us in

time for publication this week. We shall be obliged still furtherto abridge it, as several portions are, even now, not relevant toDr. Roden’s defence. In justice to the practitioners of Kidder-minster, we shall very soon have to advert to the growth of thePenny and Half-penny Club systems in this metropolis. We have

just been informed that one of these disgusting nuisances has beenstarted in the neighbourhood of St. John’s Wood, and it is stated,that physicians and surgeons holding high positions in our colleges,have joined it as consulting practitioners. Are these gentlemenprepared to encounter the inveterate hostility of their professionalbrethren? The abuses that are connected with this perniciousand quackish system are daily becoming more obvious, andcannot long escape the censure of the most respectable portion ofthe profession.

A letter has been addressed to us by Dr. Richard Hassall, ofRichmond-green, Surrey, complaining of our classifying, in areview which appeared in THE LANCET of the llth of Octoberlast, Dr. Murray’s preparation of a solution of magnesia with thenumerous quackish nostrums of the day. Dr. Hassall states thatthe mode of preparing the solution of magnesia was never keptsecret, or concealed ; but, on the contrary, from its very first in-troduction, its nature, properties, and composition, were fairlyand honestly explained, and that so effec ual was the exposition,that Professor Duncan, of Edinburgh, admitted the method ofpreparing a solution of magnesia into the Dispensatory publishedin that city a quarter of a century since.