599

he had previously considered himself tobe, he was obliged to return home in thecourse of the day, when an additionalounce of castor oil, and a saline mixtureto relieve the ardor urinœ, of which hesadly complained, was all that proved to

be necessary for his relief, and on the fol-lowing morning he was able to return tohis usual duties on board.We are, Sir, your obedient servants,

HENRY and JULIAN SLIGHT,Surgeons.

Portsmouth, July, 1833.

HENRY and JULIAN SLIGHT,Surgeons.

POWER OF THE ERGOT OF RYE.

To the Editor cf TIIE LANCET.SIR,-R. Peikup, wife of John Peikup,

of Oakenshaw, Lancashire, experiencedweak, irregular labour pains, on Tuesdayevening the 9th inst., which continued upto nine o’clock p.m. of the llth, when asshe was walking about the house, the

liquor amnii began to dribble from her.The pains then entirely subsided. I sawher about half-past ten the same evening,and found, on examination, the os uteridilated to the size of half a-crown, andeasily dilatable; the presentation natural.I waited until twelve o’clock, but she hadnot the least pain from the time the mem-branes ruptured. I, therefore, ordered

3j of ergot of rye to be boiled in x ofwater, fifteen minutes, and at twentyminutes after twelve gave her one-half ofthe above decoction. In about ten mi-nutes she complained of a little pain in theabdomen. I repeated the dose. Five mi-nutes afterwards the pains became stronger,and continued increasing until ten o’clocka.m., when the child was born. The pla-centa was expelled in a few minutes, onlyabout three-quarters of an hour elapsingafter the first dose of the secale cornutum.She informed me she had always sufferedvery much from after-pains in her formerconfinements. I gave her thirty drops oftincture of opium, and called on her thefollowing morning, and found she hadsuffered very little from after-pains, andhad had a little refreshing sleep. The pointthat is worthy of remark in this case is,that in her former labours the liquoramnii dribbled away in a similar manner tothe present, and that she was not deliveredin less than thirty hours after the ruptureof the membranes. Before giving her theergot, she requested me to leave her for afew hours, as she felt just as she had donein her former labours. I then gave her thedecoction under the name of tea, and theresult was that which I have described. Iam, Sir, &c. C. BPADLEY, M.R.C.S.L.Church, Lancashire, July 13th, 1833.

THE LANCET.

London, Saturday, August 3, 1833.

ERGOT OF RYE.-THE UNIVERSITY.

i As all further discussion in the House

of Commons, on the Apothecaries Amend-ment Bill, is postponed until the next ses-sion of Parliament, there is no subjectconnected with medical affairs which is

more likely to engage the attention of

the profession, than the proposed grant ofa ROYAL CHARTER to the UNIVERSITY

OF LONDON.

In the last LANCET we had occasion to

express dissatisfaction with the title of a

new institution, to refer to the influenceof names on English society,-and todemonstrate the often mischievous results

of inappropriate designations.On more than one occasion we have re

ferred in expressions of dissent to the titleof " University of London," as applied tothe literary and scientific establishment inGower Street. When the proposal for

founding this institution was first issued

to the public, the title must have appearedto every reflecting person as particularlyobjectionable. Was it not evident that if

London were to be distinguished as a seatof collegiate learning, that the Universityof London would consist of a nztmber of

colleges ? and that the power of grant-

ing " degrees," in such a metropolis as

this, could not, for any length of time, be

exclusively exercised by one institution ?

It will be said, possibly, that the title of" University of London" was selected, notwith a view to place it in comparisonwith the aggregate powers and privilegesof the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge,as constituting those universities, but withimmediate reference to the universality ofthe subjects taught in the new establish-ment by the various professors. This,however, is mere evasion and sophistry,

and we know there are not a few con-

600 THE UNIVERSITY CHARTER.

nectedwiththe University," who chuckle’ with delight at belonging to an institutionwhich was enabled by priority of exist-ence to found an exclusive claim to this

high-sounding, but, nevertheless, delusive

appellation. It is contended by many ofthe shareholders, and even by some of the

professors, that the institution in Gower

Street, from having been the first of its

kind in the metropolis, is the Universityof London, the great literary and scientificsun of the system; and whatever scholastic

establishments, whether of medicine or

otherwise, which existed in London priorto its first appearance on the horizon, or

which may hereafter exist, must all be re-

garded as the mere satellites of this grandluminary. This cannot be. The claim is

not founded in justice, it exhibits no showof reason, but, on the contrary, is urgedin the very worst spirit of monopoly. Wasnot the Gower-Street College avowedlyprojected with a view to the destructionof university monopolies ? Was it not

framed as a wedge that should ultimatelypenetrate and shiver to atoms the old in-stitutions devoted to sectarian and aristo-

cratic exclusiveness? Not that we have

ever joined in the unqualified condemna-tion of our ancient universities,-institu-tions which only require that their cum-brous and unsightly abuses should be re-moved, that the restrictions founded on

religious prejudices should be rescinded,to render them the brightest ornamentsof learning in the known world. Instead

then of a wedge destined to loosen the

bonds of the fabric of monopoly, is thenew institution to be employed as a leverto drive home still more tightly those

screws which we all desire to see loosen-

ed ? Experience and common sense alikeconcur in indicating that such foolery andfolly cannot be practised in the year 1833.If the shareholders and professors are ex-erting themselves, in order to acquire pri-vileges which shall give them an undue

legal advantage over other institutions inthe metropolis, we must tell them, and

frankly too, that they are not only wan-

dering from the path of their duty, but are

engaged in a most unjustifiable proceed-ing, and a persistance in which will bringupon themselves and their institution, a

feeling of disrespect little short of odium.

Independently of the abstract principleof right, an argument equally influentialwith many persons-that of expediency is

capable of illustrating the monstrous ab-surdity of conferring a privilege on one

medical school in this metropolis, whichcould not without the grossest impro-priety - an impropriety rendering the

thing almost impossible-be awarded toother similar establishments. If degreesbe granted at the Institution in Gower-

street, (which, to avoid mistakes and mis-conceptions, we must henceforth deno-

minate University College,*) surely thelike privilege must be awarded to King’sCollege, and then we should have theclaim of GUY’S MEDICAL COLLEGE, ST.

THOMAS’S MEDICAL. COLLEGE, ST. BAR-THOLOMEW’S MEDICAL COLLEGE, — inshort, the claim would not only be made,but successfully made too, by the medical

departments of all the great chartered

medical corporations. And, in that case,what would become of the Ilnendnwed

smaller establishments ? Where would exist

our private teachers ? Where would exist

our county medical schools ? Why theywould all be annihilated at "

one fell

swoop." The Degree establishments"

would thrive,—while the others would beshaken and riven asunder. Is it not

already an objection to the present sys-tem, that on the imperative authority ofits ordinances, far too many students are

annually congregated on one spot; thatour hospitals are so crowded with me-

* In the University of Oxford even, the institu.tions not endowed with FELLOWSHIPS are not

styled " Colleges," but merely 11 Halts."

601THE UNIVERSITY CHARTER.

dical pupils, that the suffering patients are gifted store to the mind of the medicagreatly incommoded by the noise occa- philosopher. In short, there would havesioned by the movement of so many, been no Hunterian museum, because there

"walkers" through the wards? Is it not would have been no JOHN HuNTER, aalso an objection, that the students are so ’ medical discoverer. The example of this

thickly studded around each sick person, one man furnishes a lesson which can

that not one in twenty is capable of observ- never be forgotten by projectors who areing these diseases, which all are so anxious really desirous of joining cordially in theto learn the means of curing ? Why, cause of medical advancement. If the

therefore, should another scheme be de- power of conferring degrees be concededvised for drawing off the pupils from their to University College, the like privilegenatural instructors, the physicians (mis- must in justice be awarded to King’s Col-called surgeons) in general practice, and lege. Afterwards the like authority wouldwith whom they have not only opportu- be awarded to the medical departmentsnities of beholding all the forms assumed of the great chartered hospitals. Once in

by human maladies, the fullest opportu- possession of such legal prerogatives, all

nities of witnessing the means adopted these institutions would combine and as-for their removal, but the most ample sume far more hideous forms of exclu-

time to reflect on the value of every the- siveness than they exhibit at present. At

rapeutic agent. The daily theatrical this moment then, when such an outcry is

plating of professors and lecturers is raised against the sordid encroachments

nothing when compared with these ad- and restrictive persecuting by-law,; of themirable sources of improvement. Have monopolists, are we to multiply such

the great discoveries in modern surgery enormities ? It is quite clear what wouldresulted from the trammels that have been arise out of these additional rights and

imposed on the pursuits of medical stu- privileges. The Royal Colleger of Phy-dents ? Had JOHN HUNTER, by far the sicians and Surgeons would immediatelygreatest of our modern discoverers, a set to work and decree that candidates

"medical degree?" Was he one of the for their diplomas would not be admittedglittering animalculm generated in the to exainiiiatio)2 unless they were Graduutes

corrupt folds of a royal charter ? Carried of the favoured metropolitan schools !

he the insignia of royalty on his breast? These two Colleges already command theExhibited that man the scowl of aristo- entire of the medical power of our greatcratic insolence, or the hauteur of Uni- medical charities. The hospital surgeonsversity sectarianism and intolerance ? form the Council and Examiners of the

Mark this, ye sticklers for graduation and College of Surgeons-the Fellows of thescholastic orders! Had the existing laws College of Physicians are the dignifiedof your Colleges been enforced when Doctors of our Hospitals. Thus in ban-

JOHN HUNTER was a young man, those dying the ball of patronage and favourit-very laws would have had the effect of ism from one institution to another, it is

depriving the world of the splendid and merely a mutation from the right to cheglorious fruits of his unequalled labours. left hand of the same body. But our cor-

The museum in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, that respondent " Medicus sets up a claim forgreat national monument, erected by the the students of all the schools to the de-

unaided hand of that man, and dedicated gree of University College, that is, he isby him to medical science, would not have for awarding to the University the right ofdelighted the eye, nor have supplied its granting degrees, but objects to the ex-

602 THE UNIVERSITY CHARTER.

ercise of that right in favour of the Uni-versity students only. The question hereturns on the fact, whether the charter is

to render the extrinsic circumstance of

possessing the degree, an imperativestepping-stone to the acquisition of higherhonours in the profession, or to the attain-ment of important legal rights and pri-vileges. Thus if the medical graduate of

University College is to enjoy undoubted

legal advantages over other medical prac-titioners and students, a most baneful

monopoly would immediately be createdin favour of the new " liberal" institution,as every student would necessarily feel itprudent to pursue his studies in that es-tablishment which could exercise the

power of so materially interfering withhis prospects and reputation. But can it

be tolerated that we should now frame our

laws so as to approve, confirm, and per-petuate the vile and mischievous practiceof allowing the teachers of one school tobe the examiners of the students of a rival

establishment, and thus empower them toinflict the injustice of withholding de-

served honours from the pupils of a suc-cessful competitor ?

This, undoubtedly, is the most odious

feature in the system of our delectable

College in Lincoln’s Inn Fields; and it isnotorious, that the hospital lecturers sittingin the Court of Examiners have frequentlyinsulted and otherwise illtreated the bear-

ers of testimonials from the thriving pri-vate schools. It is strange what painssome people take in order that they mayact unjustly. Nothing can be more siu.-

ple or easy of comprehension than first

principles; yet we abandon truth to em-brace falsehood and error, prefer darknessrather than light, and then declaim againstthe difficulties of legislating with impar-tiality. But what, we ask,’is so pressingon the conviction as a feeling of j ustice ?What plea have the shareholders and pro-fessors of University College to urge, in

order to substantiate their claim to exclu-

sive privileges? In fairness, however, tothese gentlemen, we are bound to acknonv-

ledge, that if the report of their havingadvanced such a claim be well founded,the circumstance is entirely unknown tous. With regard to the professors, wemust believe that the rumour is without

the slightest foundation. Are we then

opposed to the grant of a CHARTER to theUniversity ? Decidedly not. We were

amongst the first, as we are still amongstthe warmest, advocates of such a grant.In soliciting for letters of incorporation, weare influenced in our views by a desire toafford a legal stability to the College, weare anxious that the powers of the Coun-

cil should be well and duly defined,-thatthe duties of the professors should be dis-charged under a binding responsibility tothe law,-that the property of the Uni-

versity should remain devoted to the pub=lic service, under the security of the Royalsign manual ;-and, lastly, that the es-

tablishment should never again be at the

mercy of a knot of private speculators,individuals who are sure to obtrude them-

selves into every open English society,however respectable and liberal may be

_the majority of its members.

We have here discussed this question onits merits, entirely apart from the dis-

gusting and dishonourable conduct of a

contemptible hired writer, who it is now

evident has been occupied for some months

past in propagating the most infamous

falsehoods against the University, with a

view to serve his own private interests.

,

THE gentlemen who met at the houseof Dr. IIuL, to take into consideration thepropriety of petitioning the PRIVY COUN-ciL against granting any exclusive medicalprivilege to the proprietors and professorsof University College, consisted of the fol-

603MEETING OF MEDICAL LECTURERS.

lowing hospital physicians, surgeons, andlecturers :-

Bartholosnew’s Hospital.Dr.HuE.Dr. LATHAM.Mr. STANLEY.

St. George’s Hospital.Dr. CHAMBERS.Dr. M’LEOD.Mr. BA13INGTON. !

London Hospital,Dr. BILLING.Dr. DAVIES.Mr. SCOTT.

St. Thomas’s Hospital.Dr. W ILLTAMS.Mr. TRAVERS.Mr. TYRRELL.

Guy’s Hospital.Dr. BRIGHT.Mr. KEY.Mr. BRANSBY COOPER.

Westminster Hospital.Sir GEORGE TUTHILL.

Midillesex Hospital.Mr. ARNOTT.

Although we are sincerely and stronglyopposed to thepolitics of a majority of thesegentlemen, we feel called upon to state,

upon unquestionable authority, that theirdiscussion was conducted not only withtemper, but with marked liberality of

opinion.Dr. HUE was in the chair, and Dr.

CHAMBERS the most prominent of the

speakers.It is deeply to be regretted that the

summons for convening the meeting wasnot issued from an unexceptionable quarter,and that the resolutions were not adoptedpublicly, instead of at the private residence

of one of the lecturers. These gentlemenought to know, that the subject is one ofgeneral interest, in the consideration of

which, the admitted members of the pro-fession, as well as students, have an un-doubted right to participate.

THE note of Mr. BiRTwiSTLE, in another

i column, announcing the appointment of aLondon hospital surgeon to the office of

Consulting Surgeon in an infirmary at

Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, is particu-larly entitled to attention.Mr. BIRTWISTLE infers, that the sur-

geons had no other alternative, when theannouncement of the appointment was

made to them, than to search for a con-

sulting physician; but this step, in our

opinion, was an attempt to (?o!’Mf the in-sult to the practitioners of Aylesbury. Noalternative ?-why let them resign to besure, or prepare to be laughed at and

scouted by the whole profession.The key to the appointment of the man

of Guy’s Hospital may be explained in

very few words. :-Mr. RICKFORD, the

rich banker, has " all the influence" in

Aylesbury, he is a member of Parliamentfor the town, and holds an immense pro-

perty in the place. Young Astley Cooper,another nephew of the " worthy BARO-NET," is married to the only daughter ofthis Mr. RICKFORD; hence Bransby is

popped into the new medical nest as

" Cock-bird."

I WHEN it is recollected that Dr. CAR-

RICK of Bristol, has been in our profes-sion upwards of fifty years, his address

to the Medical Association inserted at

page 607, reflects the highest credit on

his feelings and judgment. With regardto liberality, he may be held up as an ex-

ample well worthy the imitation of manyof our physicians who have scarcely left

the portals of their Co.leges.