1159

to be grouped under Poor-law boards. A Poor-law board to (

be formed for each group of unions, but with difference of iconstitution as between the great urban groups and the Jothers. The Local Government Board to be represented on 1

the Poor-law boards by nominees proportionate in numbersto the exchequer grants given, otherwise the boards to con-sist (1) in the urban groups, of members elected for the i

purpose, the existing union areas being accepted as electoralareas ; and (2) in non-urban groups, the chairman or vice-chairman of each union, with one other guardian (if thetotal number to compose the board will permit of it) to con-stitute the joint Poor-law board of the group. Mr. Boothis-in favour of the boards being as small in numbers as maybe consistent with efficiency. In urban unions the manage-ment of all institutions to be centralised, and detailedadministration of relief to be by local committees composedof members of the board, and of co-opted nominees. Innon-urban areas the institutions to be classified andmanaged by the joint board, and the out-relief to beadministered by the guardians of the individual unionunder rules made by the joint board and approved by theLocal Government Board. Under the jurisdiction of thePoor-law boards of the grouped unions Mr. Booth wouldbring all the destitute now dealt with by the unions actingsingly, with the exception of those mentally deranged orsuffering from any degree of feeble-mindedness that resultsin destitution. These, he suggests, might be removed fromthe Poor-law, but he questions whether any such courseneed have been contemplated if a strong and uniformadministration of the Poor-law extended over large areas

could have been relied upon.This outline will suffice to indicate the nature of Mr. Booth’s

scheme and to enable members of the Poor-law medicalservice to form opinions as to how it would be likely todevelop in matters of detail. The author of it himself

presents it briefly and without any of the elaboration to befound in the Majority Report or of the advocacy which dis-tinguishes that of the Minority. He puts it forward, as he says,in the form of suggestions only, republishing memorandaalready included in Vol. XII. of the Appendix to the report ofthe Royal Commission with the addition of a few notes. Wehave not referred to the elaborate table of statistics includedin the volume now before us, which, we understand,will not be found in the shilling volume already mentioned.They are instructive and of great value in making a completestudy of the points dealt with in them, but are not necessaryto those seeking to grasp the general principle of the planproposed.With regard to the treatment of the sick, Mr. Booth

is not inclined to support the recommendation that theyshould be removed from the Poor-law and should be entrusted

entirely to the authority already responsible for the publichealth. He asks whether treatment by the public healthauthorities is to be entirely gratuitous, and suggests that thesystem of aid apparently desired should be compulsory if itis to be effective, calling attention to the sacrifice of libertywhich it would demand and the difficulty of recoveringpayment for the treatment afforded. Mr. Booth is of the

opinion that whatever it may be possible to do in thedirection of assigning the sick poor to the public healthauthority, and so preventing destitution and eliminating thePoor-law, a residue will remain that cannot properly be thusdealt with ; that there must be Poor-law institutions, andthat if there is to be only one authority it must be that ofthe Poor-law reorganied in sufficiently large areas and ableto deal with every kind of need according to its character.He questions the material advantages claimed for a singleauthority, and asks whether the divided action of the threesystems (Public Health, Poor-law, and voluntary effort) isnecessarily injurious, expressing the hope of a harmoniouscoordination of them. In a memorandum which follows hisstatistical tables (Memorandum C. I.) Mr. Booth observesthat it is in supplementing the general medical system ofthe country and not in supplanting it that the Poor-lawfinds its proper sphere, and he suggests that organisationand cooperation will meet difficulties of overlapping betweenthe Poor-law, voluntary agencies, provident dispensaries,and sick clubs. He considers that the Poor-law must giverelief to those who, needing it, fail to obtain assistancein any other way, and that conferences between the repre-sentatives of voluntary institutions and Poor-law representa-tives would tend to make clear the position of the Poor-law

on the medical side. In short, Mr. Booth is not anxious to-make any drastic change. His scheme is one having-for its object the utilisation of existing agencies andthe increase of their efficiency rather than the sub-stitution of new ones for them, and he does notaim at or favour the enlargement of the sphere ofthe Poor-law either in the matter of aid to the sick or of theother subjects with which it is concerned. Coming as theydo now, after the public has accustomed itself to the demandsfor drastic change made in the Majority Report, and stillmore so in that of the Minority, Mr. Booth’s proposals willnot, perhaps, meet with the amount of attention whichassuredly they would have enjoyed if they had been incor-porated in the original Blue-book. In their retention of muchthat has been vigorously denounced, in their claim for theadaptation of existing machinery and their obvious tendencyto render unnecessary "the breaking up of the Poor-law,"they would meet in the form of a Bill presented to Parliamentwith a very hostile reception from a large section of thepolitical world. In their present form, moreover, they are-perhaps undesirably destitute of detail and free from elabo-ration of fact and argument. They constitute, however, a.notable contribution to the great question at issue and oneparticularly interesting to the medical profession, when themore radical changes proposed in the other two schemes aretaken into consideration.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OFENGLAND.

MEETING OF COUNCIL.A QUARTERLY meeting of the Council was held on

April 14th. the PRESIDENT. Mr. BUTLIN, being in the chair.A letter, dated March 3rd, 1910, from the Privy Council

was considered. It communicated a resolution of theExecutive Committee of the General Medical Council adverseto the proposal of this College to omit certain words fromthe conclusions adopted by the General Medical Council inregard to the Anaesthetics Bill, 1909. It was resolved to

reply as follows :-That the receipt of the letter from the Privy Council communicating

the resolution of the Executive Committee of the General MedicalCouncil be acknowledged, and that the Lord President be informed thatthe Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England do not regard thecontingency put forward by the Executive Committee of the GeneralMedical Council as likely to arise. The Cotmcil of the College does notcontemplate. and their experience as opaftting surgeons does notlpc1 t.hnm tn ennmneP that. -ill ’loP, a.clrPri tn arlminiahaw

an an2esthetic in general surgical practice other than in slightoperations and on rare occasions, but they do think it willbe opposed to the advantage of the public and prejudicial to,the convenience of medical practitioners, especially in countrydistricts, if it is made illegal for dentists to administer nitrous-oxidegas (and the other anaesthetics, if any, to be specified as employable bythem’ for operations performed by qualified medical practitioners. TheCouncil desire to draw the attention of the Lord President to the factthat their body consists of surgeons actively engaged in operativesurgical practice, whereas the Executive Committee of the GeneralMedical Council, which dissented from the alteration proposed by theCouncil of the Royal College of Surgeons, consisted, with only twoexceptions, of members not engaged in the practice of surgery.The Jacksonian Prize for the year 1909 was awarded to

Mr. W. Girling Ball, F. R. C. S. , for his dissertation on " TheTreatment of Surgical Affections by Vaccines and Anti-toxins." It was resolved that the subject for the JacksonianPrize for the year 1911 should be "The Diseases of the

Pancreas, with Special Reference to their Surgical Treat-ment. "

The Triennial Prize was not awarded. It was resolved that.the subject for the next Triennial Prize should be "The

Anatomy and Physiology of the Pituitary Body, and the-

Relationship with Disease of its Abnormal and Morbid Con-ditions." "

The two following Members of 20 years’ standing wereelected Fellows. Mr. John Reuben Lunn, resident medical

superintendent of the St. Marylebone Infirmary; and Mr.Andrew Melville Paterson, professor of anatomy, University.College, Liverpool.

It was resolved to award the honorary medal of the College-to Dr. RobertFletcher, M.R.C.S., of Washington, U.S.A., inrecognition of his distinguished labours in connexion withthe publication of the Index Medicus and the Index

Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General’s Office,.Washington.The PRESIDENT reported the delivery of two Hunteriana

1160

Lectures by Dr. C. Bolton and two by Mr. George Coats, and i

one Arris and Gale Lecture by Mr. Sidney Scott. (

Diplomas of Member were conferred upon the under- t

mentioned gentlemen, who have now complied with the Inecessary byelaws, having previously passed the examina- I

tions of the Conjoint Board :-Noel Leicester Clarke, 1

B.A. Cantab., Cambridge University and London Hospital ; 1Andrew Samuel Moorhead, M.B. Toronto, Toronto Universityand London Hospital; and George Ernest Vilvandré, A.C.P.,London Hospital.

WOMEN RESIDENTS IN GENERALHOSPITALS.

A MANCHESTER DISCUSSION.

THE Medico-Ethical Society of Manchester had as visitorsat its session of Tuesday (April 12th) some 20 members ofthe Northern Association of Medical Women (Manchesterbranch) to discuss the question of the admission of women toresident posts in general hospitals. The topic has a specialinterest for Manchester, of course, in view of the recentrefusal of the Manchester Royal Infirmary Board to admitwomen graduates to resident posts in that institution-arefusal that has brought upon that body criticisms from manysources, medical and other. Sir WILLIAM J. SINCLAIR pre-sided over a very good muster of members, for it was

expected that the debate would prove lively.The case in favour of the admission of women was " led "

by Dr. MARGARET MERRY Smith, inspector of midwives inManchester, who dealt with the subject very fully in a

paper. First she outlined the history of medicine as a pro-fession for women, mentioning that there was a woman onthe first Medical Register-so far back as 1859. It was nonew thing, therefore. Dr. Merry Smith then went on to dealwith the present position of women in medicine, first as

students, next as graduates. She described the" facilities" "

offered at various medical schools for the study of medicineby women, and, summing up, expressed the opinion that onthe whole they compared favourably with those open to men.It was not till after graduation that the medical woman’sdifficulties began. At this point her opportunities, which sofar had been virtually equal to a man’s, became less good,though, fortunately, they were improving. Her attempts toget general experience in the form of general hospital workbrought her face to face with such objections as "lack ofaccommodation," "woman’s inability to agree with wardsisters," and so on-objections which she thought mightue puh ctb lll1’ urue wurbii ill uiie wuiu.—prejuume. j-uti

whole question as to the admission of a woman to a residentpost in a general hospital rested on this : Was she a fit andproper person ? Did she possess the same qualities as wouldentitle a man to hold such a position ? This depended onthree things-record of work, experience, and the personalcharacter of the individual. As to the record of work,women’s college records might be, and were often, just asgood as men’s ; as to experience, they were handicapped forsenior posts, but for junior posts they had equal expe-rience with men-namely, M,’ and as to personal character,women had the same common-sense, kindness, and physicalcapacity for the work as men had. Women had beenfound to get on with their colleagues just as well as

men-neither better nor worse. Relations with ward sisterswere not always so strained as was suggested. Surely itwas personality and not sex that mattered. As to the

argument that women themselves object to a woman doctor,it was a fact that however they might do so in theory, inpractice they accepted her. And as to the suggestion that fora woman to attend to a male patient was shocking tomale modesty, it must not be forgotten that the argumentcut both ways. Ability and special skill were, after all, thewhole basis upon which medical attendance, by man orwoman, depended. Women doctors had come to stay, saidDr. Merry Smith in conclusion, and that being accepted itwas only right and proper they should be given ampleopportunities for fitting themselves for their work.

Dr. C. MACFIE, speaking in support of the principle, madethe same point as Sir William Sinclair had made in intro-ducing Dr. Merry Smith. He said that in admitting womento medical schools they admitted them to all positions a male I

medical student might occupy. Dr. Macfie added that the

only argument he had heard against women doctors, or oneof the few that had attracted his attention, was based on theground of the neurotic element" in women.. He fullysupported the admission of women doctors to all positionsthat men doctors might occupy, but he thought it was a factthat women were less able to rise to an emergency thanmen.

Dr. C. G. L. SKINNER thought that where the highest couragewas wanted women were the equal of men, though theymight not show up so well in minor emergencies. Historysupported his contention. Calmness in emergency wasan acquired thing-acquired by training, experience, andheredity even. With the greater opportunities for develop-ment that women now had he did not doubt that they wouldsoon be in every way man’s equal in this respect, if not hissuperior.

Sir WILLIAM SINCLAIR then called for any-views theremight be in opposition to those put forward. None were

forthcoming and it was gathered that all the people present,both men and women, were in favour of the proposition.This seemed to take the gathering by surprise and to causesome disappointment, particularly to the ladies, who hadcome in numbers to champion their cause, some of them wellprimed with facts and modern instances.As the debate was in danger of petering out altogether,

Sir WILLIAM SINCLAIR called on one member after another

by name, and each under mild protest attested his full agree-ment with the case put forward by Dr. Merry Smith. Butthis they did in various picturesque ways.

Dr. E. VIPONT BROWN, whom Sir W. Sinclair facetiouslystyled "the leader of the opposition," said that to admitwomen to the fuller training of a general hospital afteradmitting them to medical schools was the only logical posi-tion that anyone could take up. To defy the logic of thiswas absolute cheek." "

Mr. W. F. DEARDEN said that if the suggestion that womenshould be confined to hospitals for women and children wasadopted it would be only logical to suggest a similar restric-tion for men; and that, a subsequent speaker, Mr. F. FARROW,pointed out, would mean the limitation of men to men and,say, old women, who would be about an equivalent for thechildren.

Sir WILLIAM SINCLAIR here remarked that the suggestionmade in I I a certain place " that women doctors should stickto diseases of woman was to him appalling.

Mr. FARROW also attributed the prejudices of lay boards tomedical women to the " arrant conservatism " of the nation,and he thought it behoved the medical profession to educatepeople "out of it."

Dr. A. W. W. LEA spoke of that meeting as an instanceof the change that had come over medical men in theirattitude towards medical women since the day when SirWilliam Jenner resigned from the Council of the BritishMedical Association rather than agree to the admittanoe ofwomen.

Mr. L. SAVATARD differed from Dr. Macfie in thinking theneurotic element was more common in women. For his own

part he had come across just as much of it in men.Dr. OLIVE CLAYDON, Dr. CATHERINE CHISHOLM, Mr.

C. R. 0. GARRARD, Dr. FRANCES HARPER, and Dr. A. C.GEORGE also spoke.

THE MEDICAL CURRICULUM OF THE UNI-VERSITY OF BRISTOL.-Concurrently with the introductionof examinations for degrees, consequent on the change froma university college to a university, it has been foundadvisable to make certain changes in the arrangements forteaching medicine and the allied subjects in the Bristolschool. Whole-time demonstrators of anatomy and physio-logy have for the first time been appointed. Arrangementsfor clinical teaching at the Royal Infirmary and GeneralHospital have been devised in order to bring these twoinstitutions into closer coordination than before, and toprovide students with a series of clinical demonstrations inthe wards and in the general and special out-patient depart-ments. The practice of these latter departments has beenfurther thrown open to students by the institution of various

clerkships and dresserships, and the Children’s Hospitalreceives a more definite status as a teaching centre thanheretofore.