466

the upper end, and a speculum auris of a Ipeculiar construction to be used with onehand. For the first ideas of both these in-struments, I confess myself indebted to SirAnthony Carlisle.

I shall request your permission to resumethe observations on the remaining portionof Dr. Fosbroke’s third paper, in a subse-

quent number of your useful and interestingwork.

W. WRIGHT,Surgeon Aurist, of London.

June 27th, 1831.

W. WRIGHT,Surgeon Aurist, of London.

THE LANCET.

London, Saturday, July 9, 1831.

INTERESTED MOTIVES OF THE COUNCIL

WHEN the Council of the College resolved,in March 1824, not to receive certificates

from the candidates for the diploma, unlessthose certificates were granted by teacherslecturing in one of the « recognised schools,’’and unless they bore the signatures eitherof the surgeons or physicians of the °° re-

cognised " hospitals, or of individuals °’ ac-knowledged by the medical establishmentsof those hospitals," it was a resolution no-

thing short of this: that in all England,London should be the only 11 school" of

anatomy and surgery-that even in this

single " school" they would only receivethe " certificates" of the officers of those

hospitals which had been " recognised"

by themselves, that is, in which they ortheir friends held situations, and that noother teachers were to possess the powerof giving the requisite certificates, exceptthose who could procure, from the medical

staff of the patronised hospitals, testimo-nials of qualification. Was ever snake in

the grass more insidious, or did it ever bearmore venom in its fangs? Under pretenceof an exception which, compared with therest of the rule, bore a semblance of libera-

lity we find an order which refers to the"I recognised" teachers themselves the ar-

bitrary power of acknowledging or rejectingthe school of a rival teacher, so that thoseof the corporate jobbers who voted in Coun-

cil for the " recognition" of their own cer.tificates, at the same time obtained, by thisbase regulation, the privilege of wieldingan instrument with which they might effec-

tually keep off all competition. But we

will not any longer descant upon the infa-mous tendency of this clause, since the caseof Mr. KIERNAN furnishes a glaring exem.plification of its most unjust operation.Who signed the " recommendation " in

favour of that gentleman ? Why, of all themedical establishment of St. Bartholomew’s

Hospital, consisting of three physicians, ofthree surgeons, and of three assistant-sur-

geons, he obtained but three signatures.His application was only thus miserably sup.ported, although he had been educated atthe hospital, and his claims, therefore, were

, well known to the officers of that establish.

ment. It is not a little curious, however,to observe those names, belonging to per.sons holding situations in the lecturing de.

partment, which he could not procure. The

gentlemen who signed the recommendation,be it remembered, held no offices in the

theatres of anatomy and surgery, neitherwere they interested in the receipts of the

dissecting-room, but they were interested inthe monies paid by students to witness thesurgical practice ; and as they were enabledto perceive that the reputation of Mr.KIER-MAN’S school might materially increase thenumber of students attending the hospitalpractice, two of the surgeons, and one ofthe assistant-surgeons, felt little difficultyin signing a recommendation, which it wasevident enough might, in a very short time,considerably add to their own pecuniaryemoluments. Be it observed, we accusethose gentlemen of no sinister motives, butit is a curious fact that three individuals of

St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, who were likelyto be benefitted by the institution of Aft.KIERNAN’S school, should sign the recom.mendation for the " recognition" of his

certificates, while of the two gentlemen,who lectured at that institution on the same

467IN THE CASE OF MR. KIERNAN.

science as Mr. KIERNAN intended to teach—

of these, we say, one refused his signatureunder the cloak of a contemptible subter-

fuge, and the other, Mr. ABERNETHY, not

only gave a peremptory refusal, but accom-

panied it with conduct and observations

absolutely insulting. Mr. EARLE, the other

non-signing surgeon of the establishment,withheld his great name for the reason, he

alleged, as stated by Dr. ARMSTRONG,but it was currently reported that, at thetime when Mr. EARLE was solicited to at-

tach his signature, he had himself an eyeto the chair of anatomy ; having, however,by a course of instructive events, acquireda more accurate knowledge of his intellec-tual dimensions, he ceased to aspire to thathonour at the very moment when he became

so far acquainted with the accomplishmentsand capabilities of Mr. KIERNAN, that he’ would then willingly sign that or anyother paper in recommendation of that gen-tleman." Were not the crafty Council fullyapprised that such would be the influenceof private interests, when stimulated byrequests similar to the one made by Mr.KIERN AN It was in effect a resolution to

secure to the members of the Court of Ex-

aminers, and their immediate relatives and

friends, every shilling of the profits whichcould arise from teaching anatomy in this

country. They well knew that the " medi.

cal establishment" of an hospital would not

acknowledge any opposition lecturer, andtheir avarice having no bounds, they wereso disgustingly indecent, and so flagrantlyunjust, as to resort to a measure which wascalculated to repress all the noble aspira.tions of youthful minds in the pursuit ofanatomical investigations. Of the TEN-in

the Court of Examiners, who signed thatdetestable retrospective and prospective" iegulation" of exclusion, SEVEN were

themselves surgeons in the seven hospitalsof London—the favoured, the only "recog- ,

nised" bospitals of London-and the eighthhad a nephew in one of those hospitals. We

must again record their names. Mr. FOR.STER and Sir ASTLEY COOPER were sur-

geons of Guy’s Hospital; Sir EVERARD

HOME was a surgeon of St. George’s; SirLUDFORD HARVEY and Mr. ABERNETHY

were surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s; andSir WILLIAM BLIZARD was a surgeon ofthe London Hospital, whilst their col-

leagues, who with the ten examiners com-

posed the Council, were all of them either

holding offices in the London Hospitals, ordirectly connected with individuals who

were thus circumstanced. These facts can-

not be too frequently or too conspicuouslysubmitted to the notice of the profession,

because they show most clearly the atro.: cities of which the ruling powers have been

guilty, under the sanction of the Charter-under the sanction of a constitution which

yet remains unchanged. This is an exceed-ingly important branch of the subject, be-cause we shall have to inquire, either inthis article or in a succeeding number, howfar those gentlemen have acted consistently,who, at one period, manifested the most de-termined opposition to the College, in con-sequence, as they declared, of the obnoxious

provisions of the charter, and those same

gentlemen, who subsequently have not

scrupled to accept of office under that

Charter, and who are now enabled to diptheir hands into the funds of the College,by their apparent disregard of principle,violation of previous pledges, and abandon.ment of those friends with whom they wereonce associated in the great struggle forsurgical reform. This point is pregnantwith interest, because the brief investiga.tion will prove, who are worthy and whoare not worthy of confidence-it will provewho have pursued one unvarying course forthe attainment of public good, and who

have stepped out of that course with a viewto the accomplishment of private objects.But to return. The Court of Examiners,

by their unwarrantable " regulation," notonly laid the foundation for securing to them.

468 PERSECUTION OF MR. GRAINGER.

selves the whole of the monies which were to

be paid by students for attending lectures onanatomy and surgery and the practice of dis-sections ; but they even went so far as to pro-claim, that no certificate of attendance uponthe surgical practice of an hospital shouldbe received by them, if that hospital did notbelong to the metropolis-or, to speak more

plainly, if that hospital were not one of thefavoured institutions in which either them-

selves, or their colleagues of the Council,enjoyed the opportunity of extracting the

fees from the pockets of the plunderedstudent. All the medical and surgical es.tablishments of Manchester, Liverpool,Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich, Exeter,Bristol, and a hundred other places, werethus proscribed in one fell swoop ; anatomyand surgery could be no-where taught, ex-

cept in the clear and salubrious atmospliereof London, by the singularly strong-head-ed, keen-sighted, highJy-gifted individualswho composed the self-perpetuating JuNToof the notorious College in Lincoln’s Inn

Fields. But, mark the TIME when this

regulation was adopted ! The success of

Mr. EDWARD GRAINGER, the lecturer, is

universally known. Worn down by his

heavy duties, lie expired, after a short butsplendid career, on the 13th of January,1824. The school which this gentlemanfounded had been a source of grievous an-novance to the JUNTO and their adherents,but to none more decidedly than to theteachers of the Borough hospitals, in the

immediate vicinity of which, only a few

months before his death, he opened the ca-pacious and convenient theatre now usedby his brother, Mr. RICHARD GRANGER.Mr. ABEILN’ETRY, one of the court of exam-iners, and a shrewd calculator, on seeingnew establishments of this descriptionspring up in various parts of the metropo-lis, had the boldness to declare to Mr.

LYNN of the Westminster Hospital, that

" as they had so many opposition schools

starting, it was high time they should be-

gin to legislate for themselves." The same

person on admitting Mr. STANLEY to be hisco-lecturer at Bartholomew’s, did not scru-

ple to propose to him that, on his (Mr.ABERNETHY’S) demise or withdrawal, Mr.STANLEY should secure the office to his

son, under a" BOND" of fourteen thousand

pounds. The particulars of this transac-

tion were fully brought to light in 18’25.

It was of vast utility in proving to the pro-fession and the public the manner in whichthe chairs of our teachers of anatomy were

employed as instruments to secure emolu.

ments to particular families, without regardto the wants of the public, or the claims ofprivate talent. Mr. EDWARD GRAINGER

’ having ceased to exist, the Council thoughtit was a glorious opportunity for demolish-ing the new anatomical establishment in

Webb Street by a coup d’etat. Now, said

! they, we may stand free from all opposition,and give full scope to the genius of our en-lightened " neveys" of,the Borough hos-

pitals. By a single stroke of the pen,

therefore, Mr. RICHARD GRAINGER was

informed that his certificates would not be

received by the College, unless he could

bring with him the acknowledgment of the" medical establishment of a recognisedhospital." Would the medical establish-

ments of St. Thomas’s and Guy’s acknow-

ledge him 1 Oli, no ! The " neveys" hadtoo great a regard for self-interest, more

especially when they considered that the

refusal would lead to the total and per.

petual overthrow of the rival establishment.Unfortunately for the honourable Court ofExaminers, Mr. RICHARD GRAINGRR, hav-

ing lectured during his brother’s indispo-sition and after his decease, had preparedstudents in the name of his brother for

their examination at the College, in which

ordeal they had all been successful. The

members of the Court were altogether ig-norant of this fact, or they had lost sight ofthe reproach which such a circumstance was

calculated to bring upon them, if they per-

469MR. LAWRENCE IN 1826.

sisted in their refusal to receive the sur-

viving Mr. GRAINGER as one of the " re-

cognised" teachers. Amongst others, how-ever, who applied to the Court on this ex-

traordinary and trying occasion he was one,and what was the reply of the Examiners

through their organ, the secretary, to Mr.GRAINGER’S request that the Court would

recognise his 11 certificates ?" Why, that

the honourable Court " could not recognisebricks and mortar," and, strange enough,about this time it was exultingly declared ain the square of Guy’s Hospital, that " the

GaarhGEx theatre should be levelled with

the ground; that two bricks of that institu.

tion should not be permitted to remain oneupon another!" The Press took up’ the

question, and unable to resist its influence,the College, overwhelmed with disgrace,capitulated at discretion. Mr. GRAINGER’S icertificates rvere recognised, but subse- I

quently the Court refused to recognise thoseof illr. BENNETT, of Mr. KIERNAN, OfMr.

DERMOTT, till at last, beaten from their un-

just and infamous ground upon all points,the certificates of the whole of these lec-

turers were unconditionally recognised bythe Court.

Having thus thrown together the acts of

oppression which roused the feelings of thecommonalty in 1826, it is our duty to turnno sluggish attention to the conduct of someof the chief actors on that occasion, with aview to contrast it with what has been their

recent, and what is their present, conduct.

Although we have here spoken of more thanone, we shall, for the most part, direct this

inquiry with reference to the proceedingsin which Mr. LAWRENCE was so actively en-gaged. Be it remembered that the charter of Ithe College—that charter which was so se-verely reprobated in 1826—is now in full

force, and is thrown into active operationagainst the members at large by that veryCouncil of which Mr. LAWRENCE has been a

member during two years last past. Mr.LAW-RENCE, the reformer of 1826, is one of the

anti. reform, self-perpetuating, criminal-pro-secuting JUNTO of 1831. False statements,

erroneous reasoning, illogical deductions,

hypocrisy, sycophancy, or direct abandon-ment of principle, can fairly be chargedagainst some of the past, or some of the pre-sent, medical reformers. It is not for us to

determine who are’the culprits, but injus.tice to all parties, in justice to the profes-sion and the public, we shall here insert

some extracts from two speeches which were

delivered by Mr. LAWRENCE in the springof 1826, and considering that gentleman’spresent position in the College, they canscarcely command too much of the attentionof the reader.

; ° We are assembled, Gentlemen," said

Mr. LAWRENCE, at the first meeting, "inpursuance of an advertisement addressed tdthe Members of the College of Surgeons,and in order to devise the best means of

remedying the abuses which exist in themanagement of that institution. As we aremembers of that College, it may he sup-posed that the considerations which have

brought us together, and the ends we aimat, concern ourselves merely : I do not re-gard the matter in that limited view, butam of opinion that it is a subject of greatpublic interest. There is hardly an indivi-uuat wno uoes nor, in some periou or ms

life, require the assistance which our pro-fession can afford. All are exposed to dis-ease and accident, and few entirely escapethem ; they who are not personally involv-ed, are often deeply interested in the suffer-ings of relations and friends. Hence it isa matter of universal concern, that all im-

pediments to the advancement of surgeryshould be removed, and that talent and in-

dustry should meet with every encourage-ment in the cultivation of so useful andhonourable a profession. Hence, too, it willbe a just ground of general complaint, if theproceedings of a public body, expressly in-stituted to watch over and promote the in-terests of surgical science, should not onlyfail to accomplish those purposes, but ac-tually retard the progress of students bynew obstacles and multiplied difficulties.The legislature, Gentlemen, has rightly

estimated the importance of our profession,

470 HISTORY AND PRESENT STATE OF

and has evinced in various charters and

Acts of Parliament, its solicitude for the ad-vancement of surgical science.* The go-vernment has always shown a great desireto further the same object. We see the

strongest proof of its liberal and wise regardfor science, in its having purchased and pre-sented to the College of Surgeons, the in-valuable museum formed by the late JOHNHuNTER ; and we have to regret that the

general management of the museum, andparticularly the regulations under whichaccess to it is allowed, have been so little

in harmony with the enlightened spirit andjust views of public utility, which led tothis munificent donation.

" In the charters and Acts of Parliament

relating to our College, it is called the

"Corplilration of Master, Governors, andCommonalty of the art and science of Sur-

geons of London:" the term 11 common-

alty" must of course denote the generalbody of members. Now, Gentlemen, whatshare have we, the COMMONALTY, in manag-ing the affairs of our College? Can any of

you point it out? I confess that I am not

able to describe it ; at least our rights, sofar as I understand them, are all of the ne-

gative kind. In short, the commonalty, orgeneral body of members, consisting ofgentlemen who must, in the first instance,have received a liberal education, and havesubsequently devoted themselves to scientificpursuits, are carefully excluded from all

participation in the administration of Col-lege concerns. They have no voice in theelection of the ruling body, which is strictlySELF-ELECTED, and its members hold their

office for life; THE COMMONALTY HAVE NOCONTROL OVER THE COLLEGE FUNDS, nor

any knowledge of their amount or appro-priation, which are kept profoundly secret; ;they have only a very limited access to

that museum which has been so liberallyprovided for their use ; they are not allowedto enter the theatre of the College by thesame door which gives admission to themembers of the Court and their friends ;lastly, in the charter obtained by the Col-lege in 1822, the commonalty, or members,are, I believe, not once mentioned." p. 3.

"Really, Gentlemen, I am not verv fondof restrictions; and as we went on well

W’e wish it was in our power to give confirma-tion to this statement.—ED. L

without any till the year 1824, I can see noreason why we should not proceed in thesame way. Restriction and exclusion are

in themselves great evils, especially when, asin the present case, they operate on a largebody, including many individuals of talent,industry, and cultivated minds ; men whomthe prospect of distinction might encourageto exertions alike honourable to themselvesand useful to the community. The exclu-

sion, indeed, does not directly injure many,but it degrades all. It ought not, therefore,to be adopted on any vague grounds or fan.ciful notions, it can only be justified as ameans of accomplishing some great and un-equivocal public benefit. The College char.ter rightly sets forth that " it is of great con.sequence to the common weal of this king-dom, -that the art and science of surgeryshould be duly promoted ;" let the Courtof Examiners then show us how their newrestrictive system tends to advance this

object."-p. 39."The CAUSE of the grievances which we

have to complain of seems to me, Gentle-men, clearly and directly traceable to theORIGINALLY DEFECTIVE CONSTITUTION OF

THE AUTHORITY FROM WHICH THEY HAVE

PROCEEDED."—p. 50.Such was the language of Mr. LAWRENCE

in 1826. The "originally defective constitu-tion" to which he then traced all the griev-ances of the commonalty, is that self-same" constitution " under the authority of whichhe is now acting with his former enemiesagainst his former friends. Alas for con-

sistency ! How are the mighty fallen !The subject possesses too much interest

to be hastily dismissed, we shall, therefore,

again take it up next week, when we hopealso to offer some remarks on the pamphletof Mr. GREEN.

WE have hitherto abstained from enteringinto any very minute examination of the

circumstances which have tended to depressthe high expectations which were formedof the LONDON UNIVERSITY, from a full

assurance that the causes which have im-

peded its prosperity would long since have

471THE LONDON UNIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS.

been removed. We saw with pride someof the first men of the state, and a great

body of the most influential individuals in

society, animated by a desire to benefit hu-

manity through the diffusion of knowledgeand the advancement of science ; we wit-

nessed with delight the erection of a

splendid institution for the accomplish-ment of their noble object, and when its

management was placed under the care ofa body of the most distinguished membersof the proprietary, we did not and couldnot for one moment contemplate the exist-ence of any obstacle to the attainment of’

their purpose, which they would not be ableand most anxious to overcome. These ex-

pectations, however, were of too sanguineacharacter, and our confidence was in greatdegree undeserved.The general meeting of proprietors which

was announced in a former Number of this

Journal, was held at the University onthe 2nd instant, and the object (stated inthe requisition which we published) for

which the meeting was convened, was car-ried without a division. The committee of

proprietors then appointed is now activelyengaged in its investigations.From the statements made during a very

desultory discussion, we have gleaned thesatisfactory information, that the finances

are by no means in the deplorable state

which was generally apprehended, and wehave no hesitation in affirming that by theimmediate adoption of a wise and promptcourse of action, the University may be-come as prosperous as its warmest friends

could expect. ;

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in the courseof his speech at the meeting alluded to,dwelt much on the necessity of what he de-nominated 11 conciliation." If by that wordhe meant the avoidance of passion or preju-dice, or that even concessions should nowand then be made, where they are not calcu-lated to interfere with the common good ofthe institution, we cordially accede to the

propriety of his advice ; but if by 11 concilia-tion " he meant that manifest abuses shouldbe continued, in order merely to preserve har-mony, we decidedly dissent from the propo-sition of the learned gentleman. Of " con.

ciliation," according to the former interpre.tation, we most cordially approve. In the

spirit of such conciliation we have com-

menced, and in the same spirit we continue,our observations.

We defer all comment on the general ma-

nagement, &c. of the University, till we are

in possession of the report of the commit-tee now sitting ; but there is one subjectwhich is so vital and pressing in importance,that we cannot delay referring to it. We

allude to the dissensions in the medical

department which fall more immediatelywithin our province. The circumstances

which it is our duty to notice are so noto-rious, and were spoken of so plainly at

the meeting of last Saturday, that there

can be no motive, even that of anxiety forthe feelings of an individual, to prevent adirect reference to them. No such feeling.however, should be allowed to interfere

with the performance of public duty.It is well known that during the first ses-

sion of the University some dissatisfactionwas expressed by the pupils as to the mannerin which one of the professors discharged the’ duties of his situation. During the secondsession (that of 18S9-3C) the dissatis-

faction was much increased. In conse-

quence of this an arrangement was pro-posed -by the professor with a view to re-move every complaint, and establish per-fect tranquillity. The demonstratorship wasassociated with the professorship, and thetwo professors divided the course of ana-tomy between them. They each lec-

tured on different parts of the same

course on the same day,-a proceedingwhich was in the highest degree absurd;by this arrangement, for instance, the be.ginning and the middle of the course weretreated concurrently !

472 THE LONDON UNIVERSITY DISSENSIONS.

Turning, however, from the truly ridicu.lous results which were thus constantlyarising, let us inquire whether the adoptionof the arrangement in question had, afterall, the merit of being followed by the

peaceful state which we were assured wouldensue from it. The history of the last ses-sion loudly replies in the negative. The

dissatisfaction gradually augmented, and

has now increased a hundred fold. At

length the other medical professors steppedforward in a body, and without express-ing any opinion as to the capabilities oftheir colleague for the duties of his olrice, I

represented to the Council, at the end ofthe last session, the injurious consequenceswhich must inevitably arise to the school

from his continuing to hold a professorship.This expression of their opinion was fol-lowed by an offer to bind themselves to payhim out of their own pockets, if he retired,an annual stipend for a certain period oftime. Further ; a committee of the Coun-cil, which was appointed to determine on

the case, reported (if some remarks, whichfell from one of the speakers towards theclose of Saturday’s proceedings, were

rightly understood) that they concurred inthe opinion of the professors as to the ne-cessity for that retirement. Yet up to this

moment the professor in question has notwithdrawn. He considers, it is said, that

the sum offered him for so doing is not suf-ficient !

The question, then, comes to be asked,why the Council do not interpose. Cer-

tain rules have been framed for regulatingthe mode of proceeding in the removal of

professors. By one of these, the presence ofa certain number of the Council is requiredto decide on any proposal of this kind, andto effect the projected removal, a majorityof two-thirds must vote against the profes-sor ; but it appears that the requisite num-ber of the Council, from some cause or

other, actually cannot be got to assemble ;and this, though the delay of each day is

productive of effects most injurious to tbeinterests of the institution.

In consideration of the circumstances

which occurred during the last session, the

arrangements for the future, should, as weadvised in a former number of this Journal,have been made before the pupils left town;so that each, on returning to his friends,might have been enabled to state that thecauses of dissension were removed,-that

satisfactory arrangements for the future hadbeen made, apd that order and confidencewere fully established in the institution

Thus they would have been enabled to can.vass for their " Alma Mater," and could have

conscientiously recommended others to reosort for instruction to the same fountain.

This course, however, though indicatedeven by the most ordinary’ prudence, hasnot been pursued, and even now, whenevery other school is making public its

arrangements for the coming session, the

Council of the University have to nominateto two chairs already vacant; and they willhave to do so to others which we take it for

granted are shortly to be declared so. How,we would ask, are candidates to be procuredif a continuance of this ruinous delay occur ?For this, as is well known, is the exact

period of the year at which every teacher

already established as such (and sure-

ly none others will be looked for) enters

into his arrangements for the approachingseason.

The rule, which we have mentioned as

applicable in cases of removal, has been

generally believed to be a law of the Uni-versity, but at the late meeting of proprie-tors it was shown not to be so. In fact

the regulations do not become by-laws untilthey are submitted to, and have received,

the sanction of the proprietors; and therules which embody it have not yet been

submitted to the proprietors. In explana’’ tion of the omission, the ATTORNEY-GENE-

RAL stated that it was desired, in the first

instance, to ascertain how the Teaulationa

473LONDON- VACCINE INSTITUTIONS.

worked, and for this object time and expe-rience were required, before making thema part of the laws. The rule in question is

acknowledged to "work" ill. Why thenis it not at once abandoned? Can a more

fitting, or a more urgent, occasion be re-

quired for rejecting it?We may probably resume this subject in

our next Number ; but we cannot now

conclude without observing, that the child.

ish indecision, which has hitherto cliarac-terised the management of the affairs of this

institution, must be changed for the most

prompt and decisive measures, or the Lon-don University will sink into utter insigni.ficance, and fail to accomplish any one of

those objects for which it was established.

LONDON VACCINE INSTITUTIONS.

REPLY OF DR. EPPS TO " MEDICTS,"

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,—The object of my letter respecting

the National Vaccine Establishment was

two-fold; first, to show the want of due

proportion between the expense of, and thebenefits derived from, that establishment;and, secondly, to prove that the NationalVaccine being removed, the supply of vac-cine matter can be kept up. The evidenceadduced appeared to many as perfectly sa-tisfactory, and the object of the presentletter is to obviate an objection stated by" Medicus," in TfIE LANCET Of the 25th ofJune, that the Royal Jennerian and theLondon Vaccine Institutions have circum-scribed the sphere of their utility, by adopt-ing the resolution, that " in future no per-sons shall be supplied with matter, unless

they be governors or subscribers, or bearletters from governors or subscribers."

It may be proper, in meeting this objec-tion, first to notice the grounds on whichthe governors of these institutions passedthe resolutiou embodied above ; and, se-condly, to show that the limitation of the

utility of these institutions by adherenceto this rule, will not be bounded by anylengthened period.Many of the governors of these institu-

tions are private gentlemen and city mer-chants. They are in the habit of payingtheir medical attendant a guinea for vacci-nating their children ; and having observed,from an examination of the books, under-

(taken with the view of devising the bestmeans to improve the funds, then rapidly declining, that many of the medical menattendant upon their families, had been, and! were continually in the habit of receiving’,vaccine matter from the institutions, with-out giving any aid by subscription, they de- termined, that, in future, medical men, whoreceived all the benefit, and who actuallyobtained fees for the performance of vacci-nation, in which they made use of the vac-cine matter supplied by the support of thoseindividuals, from whom the fees were re-ceived, should either subscribe or bring aletter of recommendation.

It was objected to this, that as " thepublic" receive the benefit of vaccination,they, and not medical men, who are merelythe dispensers of the benefit, should sup.port the institutions. The reply was verysimple : True," said the governors, "wereceive the benefit of the advice and of themedicines of our medical attendants ; forthat advice, and for those medicines, wepay them, and each party is satisfied ; butwhat would people think, were medical mento demand that the public should establishand support a general store-house of medi-cinal agents, from which every medical manmight supply all his wants, and then chargehis patients besides ? Would not societyridicule such a demand? Equally foolishis the expectation that the public shouldwholly support institutions for supplyingvaccine matter to gentlemen who actually,by using that matter, make from those verypersons who enable them to procure the

supply, a pecuniary profit." "Yes," but itwas objected, "medical men vaccinate gra-tuitously." To this it was replied, " True,but medical men give their advice ratis; andthey find themselves well paid by the 22tedi-cirtes charged for. So vaccination is per-formed gratis ; and its performance is onestepping-stone which the young practi..tioner invariably makes use of to advancehimself in his profession."The governors, therefore, passed the

resolution noticed, giving, however, a dis-

cretionary power to the director and the

secretary, to give to persons ignorant ofthe resolution, or unable to subscribe. All

parish and other charities are suppliedwithout any order ; in fact, every case of"known need " is attended to. It is termeda " known need," because the governorsfound that persons who pretended to vacci-nate gratuitously, did not so act. The go-vernors, therefore, thought it most advise-able to pass the above-noticed resolution.The second point to be established is,

that the limitation of the utility of theseinstitutions, by adherence to this rule, willnot be for any lengthened time. In proofof this it may be remarked, that many pe-