42

on the prepuce, one of them as large as a raspberry, a dailyapplication of resorcin reduced them all in the course of aweek. Mucous patches, too, were easily cured by resorcin,though the cure was not permanent, as recurrence alwaystook place.

TREATMENT OF ERYSIPELAS..

For the treatment of erysipelas Dr. Archangelski has trieda number of applications, and finds that their comparativeefficiency is represented by arranging them in the followingorder: (1) benzoic acid; (2) tincture of iodine and turpentine,as ointment; (3) sulphate of copper; (4) sulphate of iron;(5) oxide of zinc; (6) naphthalln; (7) solution of perchlorideof mercury, 1 to 300; (8) chloride of zinc; (9) iodoform.

CASCARA PASTILS.

The liquid extract of cascara sagrada though a valuable isnot a palatable.drug. Mr. Martindale has prepared somepastils containing the liquid extract. These gelatinousmorsels can be rapidly swallowed without effecting thesensation of taste in any noticeable degree. That the

pastils possess purgative properties we know from personalexperience.

FOB.MIC ACID A DISINFECTANT.Formic acid, according to Dr. Voitoff, who has made a

number of experiments on cultures of pyogenic micro-organisms, is a specific against their success, and so may beconsidered as an excellent disinfectant.

THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND MEDICALDEGREES.

THE adjourned debate upon Dr. Allchin’s amendment tothe report of the Committee of Delegates upon MedicalDegrees took place at the Royal College of Physicians onDec. 23rd, Sir W. Jenner, Bart., President, in the chair. Therewas a large attendance of Fellows.

Sir H. PITMAN spoke first, and passed in review the pre-vious resolutions of the College upon the subject, which,judging from the debate, he feared had been lost sight ofby some of the Fellows. In 1884, upon the motion of Dr.Wilson Fox, the College referred to the Medical Bill Com-mittee to consider how far it was desirable that the Collegeshould obtain powers to confer the title of Doctor of Medicine

upon its Licentiates. To this resolution there was no oppo-sition, the only material change being a further referencefor suggestion of any other means whereby the allegedgrievance to medical students, so thoroughly educated andexamined, might be remedied. That Committee reportedthat it was desirable that increased facilities should beafforded for obtaining the degree of M.D., and recommendedthat the two Colleges should immediately take steps, eitherin co-operation with an existing University or by indepen-dent action, to secure this end. An interval now elapsedpending the scheme for the conjunction of the Collegesand its sanction by the Medical Council; and, thisdone, a further remarkable and instructive portion ofthe history of the question occurred. This was the recep-tion of a letter from the Royal College of Surgeons request-ing the College of Physicians to nominate seven delegates(later increased to ten) to meet the same number from theirCollege, in order to determine what steps, if any, could betaken to enable the two Colleges to obtain the legal rightof granting the title of Doctor to persons who have passedthe examinations of the Conjoint Board. It was scarcelypossible that the College of Surgeons would have proposedthis unless they had known that the College of Physicianshad previously viewed the matter favourably. No questionwas raised as to the desirability of this step, and the reportof the delegates was now before the College. He thoughtthe Fellows could hardly have recollected this history,when they were asked to assent to an amendment whichwas so adverse to the spirit in which the College had beenacting. Moreover, the College had some time ago receiveda most influential memorial urging the combination of theColleges to form one Royal College of Medicine with powerto grant degrees. It was for the advantage of the profes-sion, and it would be to the honour of the College by beinguseful to the profession, that the candidates approved bythem should have something more than a bare qualification

to practise. At the same time they could not object to anypossible opposition. Naturally opposition might be expectedfrom the Universities, for those who possess power are lothto see it shared by others. When Durham University wasestablished it was opposed by Cambridge and Oxford. lledid not believe that such opposition would arise from anyfeeling of jealousy of the Colleges; but he could under-stand that the Universities would be unwilling to seeany degree granted on conditions less honourable thanthose of other bodies. In this he himself concurred,holding that a degree should be a distinction as wellas a title. That was the question they had to settle.A degree would have to be obtained somewhere or other,whether through a teaching university or through theColleges; and if a university were independently startedin London, the Colleges would stand in a peculiar positionwith regard to it. Sir W. Gull’s suggestion was opportune,for if they instituted an additional examination as the basisof the degree, the opposition of the Universities would bedisarmed; and no doubt such a step would benefit thepublic as well as the profession, by stamping men as fullyqualified in clinical medicine and surgery. The Collegeowed a duty to the profession, but if it had to abandon thescheme, let it abandon it altogether. The College could ofcourse change its opinion, but it had already gone too farto retreat with honour, and if it deserted the profession nowit would do an injustice, and bring discredit on itself. If theCollege sought the powers and failed, it would have done itsbest to remedy this acknowledged grievance. But whyshould it not succeed ? Some thought it anomalous forColleges to grant degrees, but they forgot that the Universityof Edinburgh was founded as a College, and existed as suchfor over a century; and, to come down to modern times,they had seen instituted in London by Royal Charter aCollege of Music, with power to confer degrees of Bachelor,Master, and Doctor of Music. If a College can be insti-tuted by Charter, why not a Medical Faculty ? As regardsthe teaching university, it must be remembered that allthings develop by degrees. They would endeavourto get power for the two Colleges to grant degrees inmedicine, and other faculties would in time crystallise-around them. But if they held their hands, and waiteduntil a complete university was established, they mightvery possibly be left outside altogether, and would losetheir acknowledged position at the head of medical educa-tion ; and if they failed to grasp the present opportunity,their claim to deal with the question would be gone forever.

Dr. MATTHEW’S DUNCAN, whilst agreeing with nearly allof Sir H. Pitman’s remarks, still maintained that the essence ofthe question had not yet been touched. The report containedstatements which were far from being confirmed. It spokeof the " schools associated with the Colleges," but was itsure of the co-operation of the schools and of their hospitals?How could a teaching university be instituted withoutteachers ? The project evidently aimed at such a universitybut there was no word as to its constitution, who were toform its senators, or in what relation the College councilswere to stand to it. All were agreed as to the grievance,and that the Colleges would be honourably engaged intrying to remedy it, but there the difficulties of the questionarose. They had to distinguish between a university anda college, and he held that a College such as this wasdistinct from a university, and its functions would be

swamped in the new body. The College would lose itsestablished position, and become a rival of other Universi-ties. No doubt it would have done a great work, but itwould be work foreign to the duties of the College; itwould create a new body and would involve its own ruin.

Dr. ORD congratulated Dr. Allchin on his speech, butmaintained that, although himself greatly interested in thework of the Teaching University Association, he could notsupport the amendment, for he felt that the Colleges, ifthey prosecuted this matter earnestly, would be working inharmony with the objects of the Association. The powerand influence of the Colleges would be of great value ineffecting this quickly; and it was in the belief that a univer-sity organisation would thus be originated that lie urged therejection of an amendment the effect of which was to stopall progress.

Sir ANDREW CLARK did not think that perfect unani-mity could be expected, but considered that in discussing theprinciple it was important not to anticipate the details of ascheme. He warned the College that if Dr Allchin’s amend-

43

ment were adopted it would be bound to apply to a uni.versity, and be quite unable to act independently; its offer;might be rejected or might only be accepted on term;humiliating to the College. That it was unreasonable forthe Colleges to become a university was no argumentagainst the course proposed, which was urged on not

only by practitioners, or by London teachers, but by.a reasonable demand on the part of London studentsThe argument that the scheme was "without precedent’was made in ignorance of the history of universities. Wa,

.any precedent ever required to found a university ? and asto the Colleges not representing the teaching body, werethey not constituted of teachers ? Nor would it be an" inferior degree," for had not the whole action of thEColleges been one to raise and improve the standard ofmedical education ? He was sure that such training, par-ticularly in clinical work, would be advanced and im-proved by this scheme. Nor would this be gained at thecost of the autonomy of the College. The degree would begiven in unison with the College of Surgeons, and eachCollege would retain, as at present, its individuality. Thequestion should be dealt with on the ground not of what istheoretically desirable, but on what is just and practicable.It could not detract from the dignity of the College.If an institution such as theirs did not progress, it wouldcertainly decay. He maintained that the grievance theyhad to remedy was a just one, and that it was reason-able and natural that it should be remedied by those whowere at the head of the profession. If the Colleges did notseek the powers by themselves, they might be supported bya third body constituted by the State and represêntative ofthe schools; or a third alternative would be that shadowedforth in the amendment--affiliation with a university. The’College was in the midst of a crisis, and he felt that if theywere to be loyal to their inheritance and hand down itstraditions unimpaired, they must take the lead in this greatmovement.

Dr. STURGES asked for a definition of the phrase "Arts orScience " in the resolution, and was proceeding to criticisea previous report suggesting details of a proposed Arts- examination, when it was pointed out that the College hadnot at present considered such details.

Dr. QUAIN contended that Dr. Allchin’s amendment didnot point out how the object they aimed at was to besecured. The College was bound to give a degree, and thedetails of the scheme could be referred for further considera-tion.

Sir RISDON BENNETT said his loyalty to the College andanxiety on its behalf prevented him accepting the resolution.of the delegates. He thought that if the opportunity nowbefore them of acquiring these powers were lost for ever, itwould be to the advantage of the College ; yet he quite.admitted there was a grievance, and that it was the duty ofthe College to assist in getting rid of it. He could vote forthe second resolution, which involved an application forpowers to grant degrees, but could not concur in the- details of the first resolution. He would consent to nothingwhich touched on the rights and privileges of the College,.and he maintained that the first effect of creating a newclass of graduates would be to break down the partitionbetween the Licentiates and the Members, and would.entirely alter the value of the Fellowship. How could thisbe done without converting the College into a new-fangleduniversity, with the consequent loss of its prestige? What-ever is done, it must tend to raise the examinations, andwould lead to the establishment of an inferior body, whilstdoing away with one high-class examination. He felt thatthey were very imperfectly acquainted with the probableoutcome of such a scheme.

Dr. DICKINSON said there was a great work before theCollege, and that if they obtained powers to confer a degree,it must be a worthy one, embracing a higher examinationin Arts, a clinical examination, and a requirement thatcandidates should have had part of their education inLondon.

Dr. LATHAM had formerly opposed the project, but hadbeen converted to it, and hoped that, for the advantage ofthe general public, of the medical students in London, ofthe Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and especially ofthe old Universities, it would be carried into effect. Hebelieved that any opposition that might come from theold Universities would proceed from a sentimental grievance,and that they would hold their own ground. The graduatesof the Universities were proud to become Fellows of the

College ; and was there any reason why that relationshipshould not be still maintained? Were not the two Colleges’in a better position to judge of medical education than the-small bodies of the Universities; and would they not seekto maintain the standard of medical learning ; whilst theycertainly could not lower the value of University degrees?

Dr. BARNES said that it was wrong to fear that the Col-leges would suffer in reputation by taking this course. Ifthey have a leading part in the project, how could theysuffer degradation ? They had gone too far to retire withany decency or safety. He held that medical education wassuperior in London, and the student life in London could becompared with the life at a University.

Sir W. GULL said it was the duty of the College to advancethe profession of medicine, and to minister to its wants. Ifstudents are driven away from London for want of a degree,the Colleges should meet this. They had already accepted.this, and had to consider on what terms such a degree shouldbe given. He suggested the title of M.D. Lond. as oneworthy of adoption, that of M.D. Univ. Lond. standing forthe present University. The time had come for granting adegree on professional merits.

Dr. BROADBENT pointed out that the question was

whether they were going to delegate this power to othersor do it themselves. If the College decided not to takepowers, according to the amendment, then the whole ques-tion would fall. If the decision were otherwise, then theymust expect that all who now objected would co-operateto make the degrees worthy of the Colleges. To all intentsand purposes, the Colleges at present exercised the functionsof a medical university; so that the step proposed wasmerely a further development of their powers, the realrevolution being when the College began to examineLicentiates. That action of the College had raised the wholetone of medical education. If the amendment were carried,another body would be called into existence, and theColleges would sink into a secondary place.

Dr. PRIESTLEY had been much influenced by Sir H.Pitman’s speech, and having no doubt that this would bethe starting point of a new university, he should supportthe resolution.The College then divided, and Dr. Allchin’s amendment

was rejected by a large majority, only nine Fellows votingin its favour.

Dr. BROADBENT moved, and Sir W. GULL seconded, thenext resolution-viz., " That an application be made to theCrown by the Royal College of Physicians of London andthe Royal College of Surgeons of England, acting conjointly,for power to confer degrees in medicine and surgery." Thiswas unanimously acceded to, and a further motion referringthe resolutions and Sir W. Gull’s amendment to the Com-mittee of Delegates was also carried, on the motion of Dr.Quain, seconded by Dr. Priestley.

DONATIONS AND LEGACIES TO MEDICALCHARITIES IN 1886.

THE following is a list of the principal legacies and giftsduring the past year to the various medical charities andinstitutions of Great Britain:—Mrs. Mary Anne Curwen(in default of her daughter having issue), £40,000 to St.

George’s Hospital, £5000 each to two and X2500 each toabout twenty other London medical charities ; Mr. RichardHenry Vade Walpole, over .6185,000, in equal shares, to theWestminster Hospital, Charing-cross Hospital, King’s CollegeHospital, St. Mary’s Hospital, the London Hospital, theRoyal Free Hospital, the London Fever Hospital, the City ofLondon Hospital for Diseases of the Chest, the Norfolk andNorwich Hospital, the Cheltenham Hospital, the Great Yar-mouth Hospital, and the British and Foreign Sailors’ Home,Great Yarmouth; Mr. Henry Chisley of Hastings, £13,650 tothe London Hospital; Alderman Thomas Rose, Manchester,£10,000 to the Manchester Royal Infirmary, X5000 to theSalford Hospital, £2000 to St. Mary’s Hospital for Women,Manchester, and .E1000 each to the local Eye, Lock, andClinical Hospitals; Mr. James M’Ewan, £5000 each to theGlasgow Royal Infirmary and the Western Infirmary, Glas-gow ; Mr. Beard wood, X5000 to the Blackburn and EastLancashire Infirmary; Mr. Alfred Burgeq, Worthing, .S3600to such institutions or societies as his trustees shall think