+ All Categories
Home > Documents > THE LANCET

THE LANCET

Date post: 05-Jan-2017
Category:
Upload: nguyenxuyen
View: 212 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
4
460 THE LANCET. LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1846. CHANGES IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY. We insert the following letter written by the 3’lARQUIS OF NORTHAMPTON; it appeared in The Times of Oct. 15th, in reply to a leading article in THE LANCET of the lOth inst.:- " To the Editor of the Times. "Six,—My attention having been directed to an article in THE LANCET, full of mistakes and misstatements, I take this opportunity, afforded to me by your columns, if you will give me leave to do so, to contradict the report that I have resigned the office of President of the Royal Society. It is neither necessary nor right for me to enter upon the other assertions contained in this paragraph; but the well- known fact, that I have been long anxious that the anniver- sary of the Royal Society should be held at a more convenient time than the 30th of November; my observations on that subject in my last year’s address to the Society, and the intro- duction of discussion on papers, and other changes during my presidency, and with my entire concurrence, will show to the readers of the article in question how much accuracy they may expect in its other statements. " am, Sir, your humble servant, " Peterborough, Oct. 13." " NORTHAMPTON. LORD NORTHAMPTON’S note is not remarkable either for its clearness or its gentlemanly tone. We did not say that the Marquis had relinquished the Presidency of the Royal Society, but that, some time ago, he sent in his resigna- tion to the Council, and had been prevailed upon to remain in office for the present. A direct answer to our own statement would have been more to the purpose, and as regards that particular point, we should have been happy to make the amende. LORD NORTHAMPTON does not think right " to enter upon the other assertions," but, nevertheless, he would have the world believe them to be all inaccurate, simply because he, in an ambiguous manner, states one of them to be erroneous. If, out of a body of the most carefully collected facts, any person who was adverse to their reception were allowed to takea single item, and, because it was not perfect, therefore to infer the falsehood of the whole, where, we ask, would truth be? If any one published a volley of falsehoods, and maintained their truth because of the presence of one good fact amongst the bad, lie would only be copying the logic of the Marquis of NORTHAMPTON. If our statements were worth an insinuation, they were worth a straightforward denial, seriatim. We received our information from a source which we believed could not lead us into error. The letter in question scarcely touches our more important statements. Lord NORTHAMPTON affirms that he has not resigned the pre- sidency of the Royal Society. Is he prepared to deny that, a being in a minority in the Council when certain questions of reform were mooted, he did not intimate his wish to withdraw from the presidency ? We stand not upon words. The Mar- quis contradicts the report that he has actually resigned the office of President, and so far we admit the correction, if it be necessary. But, we ask, did not his lordship consent to retain the presidency of the Royal Society at the earnest request of certain members of the Council ; and if so, does not that amount to a virtual resignation ? Lord NORTHAMPTON calls in question the accuracy of the other statements made by us Does Lord NORTHAMPTON deny that there is a Charter-com- mittee of the Royal Society now sitting; that the mode of elec tion of fellows is to be changed; that the number is to be limited and that it has been proposed that the office of President should be triennial ? Is Lord NORTHAMPTON prepared to deny that these facts, excepting that relating to his resignation, are actually in print, and in circulation among the members of the Council ? ’SVe feel obliged to refer to certain other facts, which show that official denials are not always to be trusted implicitly, and that the officers of the Royal Society, in particular, can claim no special freedom from mistakes. In the course of our late comment upon the proceedings of the Royal Society, we foresaw the possibility of the resig- nation of the Marquis of NORTHAMPTON, and warned the Council of the expected vacation of the presidential chair of the Society of Antiquaries, from intestine cabals in that body. It was forthwith denied that’Lord ABERDEEN had resigned, or thought of doing so. Nevertheless he did resign. On another occasion we stated that at the illegal meeting of the Physio- logical Committee, on the 28th October, 1845, at which the award of the Royal Medal in Physiology was recommended after the departure of the Chairman, reports from the referees of Mr. BECK’S papers were introduced. Professor BELL, the Secretary of the Physiological Committee, who was present at that meeting, wrote to the Editor of the Literary Gazette, and said,- "There is not a word of truth in the assertion that Dr. Sharpey drew from his pocket a report of Mr. Beck’s paper; there was no such report on this or any other paper:’ What did we do ? We instantly produced a letter, written by Dr. RoGET, the senior secretary of the Royal Society, who was also present at the meeting, in which he informed Dr. LEE that,- "The committee of physiology had received, before they came to the decision respecting the award of the Royal Medal, two separate reports on 31-,r. Beck’s paper, drawn up by the referees, to whom it had been sent for examination, and the referees, to whom it had been sent for examination, and for their opinion of its merits, and the recommendation of the committee of the award of one of the Royal medals to the author of the paper was made, after those reports had been taken into consideration, at one of the fullest meetings of that com- mittee we have ever had." This full meeting must have been the one referred to by Mr. BELL, for no meeting of the Physiological Committee took place from the time at which Mr. BECK’S paper was referred, until that at which the recommendation was made. Whether the truth lay with Dr. ROGET or Mr. BELL we do not know; but we were able to justify our own statement. On another occasion we stated that a paper of Dr. MARSHALL HALL, read March 2nd, 1837, had been black-balled at the Royal Society. Dr. ROGET replied, in a letter, in which he declared the said paper " was never black-balled as un- "worthy of publication;’ it was withdrawn by himself previous " to any decision by the Committee of Papers on the question of "its being published." B In reply to this we instantly produced a letter to Dr. MAR- SHALL HALL from Mr. CHILDREN, the junior secretary of the Royal Society, written in 1837, in which were the words, " The Council have not thought it right to print your paper in its present form." : The Council, be it known, are, according to the statutes, the L "standing committee’’ of reference for all papers read before . the Society. There, again, we justified our statement. If we adopted the logic of the Marquis of NORTHAMPTON, - instead of, as he himself does, arguing the falsehood of a ; . number of facts from a misconception or mistake in one only,
Transcript

460

THE LANCET.

LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1846.

CHANGES IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY.

We insert the following letter written by the 3’lARQUIS OFNORTHAMPTON; it appeared in The Times of Oct. 15th, in replyto a leading article in THE LANCET of the lOth inst.:-

" To the Editor of the Times."Six,—My attention having been directed to an article in

THE LANCET, full of mistakes and misstatements, I take thisopportunity, afforded to me by your columns, if you will giveme leave to do so, to contradict the report that I have resignedthe office of President of the Royal Society.

It is neither necessary nor right for me to enter upon theother assertions contained in this paragraph; but the well-known fact, that I have been long anxious that the anniver-sary of the Royal Society should be held at a more convenienttime than the 30th of November; my observations on thatsubject in my last year’s address to the Society, and the intro-duction of discussion on papers, and other changes during mypresidency, and with my entire concurrence, will show to thereaders of the article in question how much accuracy theymay expect in its other statements.

" am, Sir, your humble servant," Peterborough, Oct. 13."

" NORTHAMPTON.

LORD NORTHAMPTON’S note is not remarkable either for

its clearness or its gentlemanly tone. We did not saythat the Marquis had relinquished the Presidency of the

Royal Society, but that, some time ago, he sent in his resigna-tion to the Council, and had been prevailed upon to remain inoffice for the present. A direct answer to our own statementwould have been more to the purpose, and as regards that

particular point, we should have been happy to make theamende. LORD NORTHAMPTON does not think right " to enterupon the other assertions," but, nevertheless, he would have theworld believe them to be all inaccurate, simply because he,in an ambiguous manner, states one of them to be erroneous.If, out of a body of the most carefully collected facts, any personwho was adverse to their reception were allowed to takea singleitem, and, because it was not perfect, therefore to infer thefalsehood of the whole, where, we ask, would truth be? If

any one published a volley of falsehoods, and maintained theirtruth because of the presence of one good fact amongst thebad, lie would only be copying the logic of the Marquis ofNORTHAMPTON. If our statements were worth an insinuation,they were worth a straightforward denial, seriatim.We received our information from a source which we

believed could not lead us into error. The letter in

question scarcely touches our more important statements.

Lord NORTHAMPTON affirms that he has not resigned the pre-sidency of the Royal Society. Is he prepared to deny that,

a

being in a minority in the Council when certain questions ofreform were mooted, he did not intimate his wish to withdrawfrom the presidency ? We stand not upon words. The Mar-

quis contradicts the report that he has actually resigned theoffice of President, and so far we admit the correction, if it be

necessary. But, we ask, did not his lordship consent to retainthe presidency of the Royal Society at the earnest request ofcertain members of the Council ; and if so, does not that

amount to a virtual resignation ? Lord NORTHAMPTON calls in

question the accuracy of the other statements made by usDoes Lord NORTHAMPTON deny that there is a Charter-com-

mittee of the Royal Society now sitting; that the mode of election of fellows is to be changed; that the number is to be limited

and that it has been proposed that the office of President

should be triennial ? Is Lord NORTHAMPTON prepared to denythat these facts, excepting that relating to his resignation, areactually in print, and in circulation among the members of theCouncil ?

’SVe feel obliged to refer to certain other facts, which showthat official denials are not always to be trusted implicitly,and that the officers of the Royal Society, in particular, canclaim no special freedom from mistakes.In the course of our late comment upon the proceedings of

the Royal Society, we foresaw the possibility of the resig-nation of the Marquis of NORTHAMPTON, and warned theCouncil of the expected vacation of the presidential chair ofthe Society of Antiquaries, from intestine cabals in that body.It was forthwith denied that’Lord ABERDEEN had resigned, orthought of doing so. Nevertheless he did resign. On anotheroccasion we stated that at the illegal meeting of the Physio-logical Committee, on the 28th October, 1845, at which theaward of the Royal Medal in Physiology was recommendedafter the departure of the Chairman, reports from the refereesof Mr. BECK’S papers were introduced. Professor BELL, the

Secretary of the Physiological Committee, who was presentat that meeting, wrote to the Editor of the Literary Gazette,and said,-"There is not a word of truth in the assertion that Dr.

Sharpey drew from his pocket a report of Mr. Beck’s paper;there was no such report on this or any other paper:’What did we do ? We instantly produced a letter, written

by Dr. RoGET, the senior secretary of the Royal Society, whowas also present at the meeting, in which he informed Dr.LEE that,-"The committee of physiology had received, before they

came to the decision respecting the award of the RoyalMedal, two separate reports on 31-,r. Beck’s paper, drawn up bythe referees, to whom it had been sent for examination, andthe referees, to whom it had been sent for examination, andfor their opinion of its merits, and the recommendation of thecommittee of the award of one of the Royal medals to theauthor of the paper was made, after those reports had been takeninto consideration, at one of the fullest meetings of that com-mittee we have ever had."

This full meeting must have been the one referred to byMr. BELL, for no meeting of the Physiological Committee took

place from the time at which Mr. BECK’S paper was referred,until that at which the recommendation was made. Whether

the truth lay with Dr. ROGET or Mr. BELL we do not know;but we were able to justify our own statement.On another occasion we stated that a paper of Dr. MARSHALL

HALL, read March 2nd, 1837, had been black-balled at the

Royal Society. Dr. ROGET replied, in a letter, in which hedeclared the said paper " was never black-balled as un-

"worthy of publication;’ it was withdrawn by himself previous" to any decision by the Committee of Papers on the question of"its being published."

B In reply to this we instantly produced a letter to Dr. MAR-SHALL HALL from Mr. CHILDREN, the junior secretary of theRoyal Society, written in 1837, in which were the words," The Council have not thought it right to print your paper inits present form."

: The Council, be it known, are, according to the statutes, theL "standing committee’’ of reference for all papers read before. the Society. There, again, we justified our statement.

If we adopted the logic of the Marquis of NORTHAMPTON,- instead of, as he himself does, arguing the falsehood of a

; . number of facts from a misconception or mistake in one only,

461LIMITS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION.

we should be able to argue for the correctness of the state- i

ment in doubt, from the proved correctness of many others ofa similar kind. But the resignation or non-resignation of theMarquis of NORTHAMPTON is, perhaps, the least importantpoint of the whole matter. Since he remains in office, weshall have somewhat to say respecting the past and presentperformance of the presidential duties. His lordship acknow-

ledges that, besides altering the date of the anniversary meet-

ing to a more fashionable time, " other changes" are in con-templation. He is, however, unwilling that THE LANCET shouldclaim any merit. We can assure his lordship that we are moreanxious that the organization of the Royal Society should beimproved than we are for any opportunity of self-congratula-tion. The credit of having caused the Council to decide thatin future no Royal Medals shall be given excepting topapers actually printed in the Philosophical Transactions, issufficient for our humble selves. As an announcement of this

reform has been published, we suppose there can be no doubtabout its truth, and this alone will prevent any more of the

injustice which has been perpetrated for many years in givingthe highest honours of the Royal Society to papers whichhave not been read to the Society, or seen, excepting by thesecretaries and referees. We willingly accord the claim tothe merit of any other reforms that he may plume himsellupon, to the Noble President.

COMMUNICATIONS are from time to time addressed to us re-

specting the steps taken by medical men of good standing toeffect an unnatural combination between pharmaceutical che-mistry and the practice of medicine. Pharmacy now has its

journals-its men of scientific reputation; and if there be onething more than another to which pharmaciens openly aspire,it is, the honour and profit of superintending the preparationof the materia medica. The materia medica, the knowledgeof all the articles it contains, or the raw material of physic, inall that relates to purity, preservation, and preparation-theknowledge of the pharmacopœias, or of the modes in whichthe raw materials are combined according to the judgment ofthe official bodies who preside over their construction-andthe perfect comprehension of prescriptions, which are, when

they deal with raw materials, the extemporaneous pharma-copoeia of the individual practitioner: these, with improvementsand even discoveries in pharmacy, are the chief things requiredat the hand of the pharmaceutist, if the profession should ever,in large towns, so far alter its position as to resign the saleand preparation of drugs to the chemist and druggist. But

ought not the aims of the most ambitious pharmaciens to tendto anything more than this! Ought they ever to forget that itwould be their duty to prepare drugs for the medical man,and not for the patient? Ought not the preparation of medi-cines, under such circumstances, to be as separate from thescience of medicine and its application to practice, which isthe art of medicine,-to be as separate and distinct as themanufacture of surgical instruments is from the practice ofsurgery ? We are not here debating the question, whetherpharmacy ought to constitute a separate department or not.But to those who maintain that it should do so, we have no

hesitation in saying what its limit ought to be. It should be;we repeat, solely and completely, the preparation, and sale,and improvement of the armamentarium medicum.We ask the question-Is there, in the pharmaceutical press

any wholesome restriction whatever as to the scope of studyproper for the chemist ? Are not therapeutics constantly mixedup with materia medica, though for the comprehension of them,the study of anatomy, physiology, and pathology, is essentiallyrequisite, and without which, a smattering of therapeuticinformation must be extremely dangerous if exercised uponthe sick ? Is not toxicology openly grafted on the pharma-ceutical courses of chemistry, botany, and materia medica What does it mean ? Is the chemist to be taught the anti-dotes to poisons, and not permitted to use his partial know-ledge? And we say partial, because the proper medicalsciences are even more imperatively required in toxicologythan in ordinary therapeutics. Or if the chemist is to use

his toxicological knowledge, it is tantamount to saying that heis an actual medical practitioner, fitted to act in the gravestemergencies that can occur. Again: if the chemist and

druggist is to use his imperfect knowledge of toxicology, whatmust become of medical jurisprudence Who is to supplythe evidence for the defence of the innocent, and the punish-ment of the guilty? Are we to depend for those things upon thetoxicological druggist? On every side, in pursuing this subject,considerations of the gravest character arise before the re-flective mind; considerations as important to the chemistas to medical practitioners.And who are the parties who supply this kind of partial

information, this " little knowledge," which, in medicine sopreeminently, is but "a dangerous thing"? They are physi-cians, public lecturers, who are teaching the same things atthe same times to medical students. The matter will not

bear the test of common honesty, that they should teach toextra-professional persons that knowledge for which studentspay them, and upon which the students depend in the futurepractice of the profession. As well might they invite drug-gists at once to attend their professional courses on toxicology,materia medica, and therapeutics. Lectures delivered in dif-

ferent places do not make a difference of matter. We arethe more struck with these things, because of seeing, recently,the prospectus of a flaunting and tawdry periodical, addressed tothe rising "thirty thousand druggists’ and chemists’ assistants,"in which medical men, lecturers, and hospital physicians, wereparaded by the dozen as contributors in embryo. We confesswe have looked in vain for any repudiation of such a scandalfrom the parties thus implicated. They are accused of

professional suicide, and they sit silent under the accusa-

tion.

We do not, of course, intend our strictures to apply to the

proper education of chemists and druggists, but to their im-proper education, and the complicity of medical men therein.

’0 &bgr;íó&sfgr; &bgr;oa&khgr;í&zgr;,ñ &dgr;∈ ar;p. So says the divine old man

of Cos-so in their very motto say the Royal College of Phy-sicians of London-so does not say the editor of the British and

Foreign Medical Review, in an article, in the present number ofthat journal, on Hydropathy, in which the "Preissnitzian era" is

glorified, and legitimate medicine made to lick the dust; andin which medical men are called " drug doctors," and re-

proached with a train of " drug diseases." If we adopt the

cold-water cure, we are told that " very little experience is"necessary to enable an educated medical man to acquiresufficient insight into it for purposes of practice. Many ofthe best hydropathic physicians have, in the first instance,

462 "YOUNG PHYSIC" AND ITS ABSURDITIES.-THE PATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

" devoted very many weeks to studying the subject in" Germany."

But, seriously, is our medical literature in a way to raiseor to depress science and our profession? Are we pursuingcourses which are likely to conduct us to a true and steadfastknowledge of diseases and their remedies; or are we wander-ing among rocks and quicksands? Is sage and scientific medi-

cine in such straits that she must needs cry " Help, help!" toevery vain and futile quackery of the hour? Are "we, the heirsof all the ages, foremost in the files of time," to cast dirt uponour fathers’ graves, and proclaim ourselves to the world naked,and poor, and ignorant? " Young Physic" would say "Ay" toall this, and, in the first year of his birth in the journal thathatched him, makes unholy alliance with mesmerism, homœo-pathy, and hydropathy, and shouts, at the top of his voice,A new Era" is at hand !

We agree with the sentiment of Lord BACON, when he says,"I hold every man a debtor to his profession;" and we woulddefend our profession as we would our friend, through goodreport and evil report; or if we thought of it as some recentwriters seem to do, we would honestly relinquish it. But, intruth, our noble profession needs no such defence. It needs

but a just system of logic, first, to analyze its evidence, and ofethics next, to estimate it justly-to secure a fair and honour-able name and position, in spite of all the calumnies, from the" Fallacies of the Faculty" to " Young Physic," or any othernicknames, which its open or insidious enemies would heapupon it.

It is not less in sorrow than in anger that we draw the at-tention of the profession to this subject. We must first puta question. What is the object of the designation anddetails of the " Fallacies of the Faculty"- that, literallyspeaking, deadly-lively production ? Is it not to expose our

profession and medical practice to ridicule ! And is not thereal effect of " Young Physic" precisely the same ? If not, inwhat respect do they differ, excepting in the plainness or inthe insidiousness of the terms? Do not the " Fallacies of the

Faculty" and " Young Physic" quote the same works, withthe same object, or at least the same effect, viz., the degra-dation of all past medical opinion and practice, not holdingsacred even the name of Loms !

The term " Young Physic," especially as introduced, but wetrust not received, amongst ourselves, is the worst injury ofall, because it comes from a soldier in our camp; as if, forsooth,scientific medicine could be " young," could be other than theresult of ages of exact observation, and of the efforts of gene-rations of careful, precise, and conscientious observers. No.

Medicine must be established, like astronomy, physics,chemistry, all natural truth, and all science, on exact and

long-continued observation. From the results of observationssome KEPLER, some NEWTON, in medicine, may one day deduceits laws, its theory. But, like astronomy, the science to whichthose great names are attached, medicine must, we repeat, bebased on observation, and that observation must be cumulative,through time and generations, and must flow, not from therandom statements of dishonest quacks, but from the laboriousefforts of able, conscientious, and devoted observers amongstthe members of the profession.True medicine can no more be the fruit of homoeopathy,

of hydropathy, of mesmerism, or of "Young Physic," thanastronomy could result from that cheat,Astrology; or chemistry

from that other cheat, Alchemy. What we want is, to delivermedicine now from quackery ,-from all the quackeries, evenas astronomy was delivered from astrology, and chemistryfrom alchemy; and who shall dare to say that medicine, themother of so many sciences, has not enough of truth andknowledge within her to make this the full time for her de-liverance from the cheat which has clung to her so undulylong.That in the course of homœopathy,—that system which

allows disease to make its havoc on the internal organs, the

springs of health and life, without any strenuous effort to

arrest its baneful course; that in the course of hydropathy,- that opposite system of violence, of gambling for health,-that in the course of these follies and trickeries some newfacts, and even some good results, may occur, we do not deny;but we do emphatically deny that it is honest or honourable

to pursue courses so inert on the one hand, and so violent onthe other, so replete with hazard and danger on both; or tosanction them, in any manner or degree, for the sake of anysuch collateral good.But " Young Physic," a silly phrase at the best, seems to

be the quintessence of all the medical follies of the day.No less than five articles are contained in the current number

of its organ, under the different nicknames of these quackeries.Alas! for medicine, when such is the character of her literature.We regard all this as the worm at the core, not of our

SCIENCE,—nothing can affect that,-but of our reputation inthe public mind; and we warn the profession of its inevitabletendencies. Again we are compelled to pronounce the

epithet, "Young Physic," most supremely ridiculous. There

may be discoveries in medicine : in that respect there may be

something new; but how, and in what way, " young"? Did

NEWTON or DALTON make astronomy or chemistry young? ?Advances in science, and in beneficence, as in years, our pro-fession may, and we trust will, make; but become young,"and be cradled in homoeopathy and hydropathy, it never

can or will. It cannot take quacks and quackery as its sup-porters ; but, advancing in the way of truth and honour, in thespirit of the motto of the College of Physicians, and of alltrue lovers of Medicine, from the humblest acolyte to themost profoundly learned, " Life is short, and Art is long," itwill go on to realize more and more the noble escutcheon of

the same College, and of the same Faculty,-a human hand,illumined and strengthened by the heaven of science, andstretched forth, under the sun, for the relief of the afflicted.

THE christening of the PATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY was performedon Tuesday last, in a very commodious room, at 21, Regent-street, before a large and excellent company. Dr. J. C. B.

WILLIAMS ( University College) fulfilled the duties of minister,and Dr. BEKTLEY (of Guy’s) and llr. «aRn (of the LondonHospital) executed the honourable office of clerks. The partof godfather was very widely shared. Numerous gifts weremade on the occasion, none of them, it is to be hoped, signi-ficant, by their condition, of the future health and strength ofthe Society. One donor offered an apoplectic brain; another,the bones of a dismembered foetus; a third, a stricturedoesophagus; others, a diseased pharynx, a fractured femur (?),and a lacerated heart. The contributions, however, were in-structive and valuable. The ceremony was attended by be-

463

tween sixty and seventy relations, bearing the family name of" MEMBER," and nearly double the number of visitors," who,on the 3rd of November, will have the opportunity of witnes-

sing the effect of a fortnight’s growth of the infant Hercules.The rites were all performed with due solemnity, until Mr.LiSTON, with a characteristic effort to procure a better viewof one of the presents, trod for a moment on the toes ofDr. PEACOCK-a painful proceeding, which, however, consider- ’ing the weight of the worthy surgeon’s foot, was borne withequally characteristic patience.While on the topic of christening, let us observe, that in

the PATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY it is pleasant to meet with soshort a name. The founders were right not to burden it witha cumbersome and useless title. Some medical sponsors seem

to regard long names as essential to clearness and dignity ofcharacter, whether the offspring be a society or a book. The

"MEDICO Chirurgical Society," (the Royal Medical and Chi-rurgical Society, that is;) the "Medico-Chirurgical Review;"the " Provincial Medical and Surgical Society," the " Edin-burgh Medical and Surgical Journal," the " Monthly Medicaland Physical Journal," the " British and Foreign MedicalReview, or Quarterly Journal of Practical Medicine and

Surgery;" and so on. Such titles indicate muddleheadedness

at the christening. Medico-Chirurgical, Medical and Surgical,Medical and Physical, Practical Medicine and Surgery; asthough Medicine and Surgery were not one science! The profes.sion themselves speedily cut down such names. Indeed, every-where a disposition prevails to abridge long titles. A weeklyperiodical lately called the SPIRIT OF LITERATURE, was,

in the first week, compressed by elision, at the News-

Hall, into the easy euphonism of "SPITTLE-O-TRATUR."

The collectors of the Societies for the Diffusion of Re-

ligious Information, the Promotion of Christian Knowledge,and the Propagation of the Gospel, have, for a long time,respectively pared down these ponderous names to the

smoother cognominations of "SiETY ’Fusion," " SiETY ’MonoN,"and " SIETY ’GATION." In like manner did the profession,in proper time, sensibly reduce the medical periodicals intosuch simple and commodious designations as " JoHNSON’s

JOURNAL," "THE EDINBURGH," the "YELLOw FUNGUS," "THE

HYDROPATHIST," &.c.; and brief and expressive as is the titleof THE LANCET, yet the wits and comparison-lovers, a curt andsententious race, whenever they chance to mention " THI

VIPER," by acute apprehension of the old fable, call us, "TmFILE."

We wish the new association a flourishing career. Next

week we shall publish a report of the very interesting commu- Inications of Mr. LISTON, Dr. QUAIN, and the other contributors; ’,but before another meeting is held, let us advise the membersto cultivate an audible, steady, and collected mode of readingtheir papers. On Tuesday night, a third, at least, of the audi-ence must have missed hearing, intelligibly, a large portion ofthose which were read on that occasion.

By-the-by, has the thought struck any of the Councils ofthe various London medical societies, that, in self-defence,some change may become essential in the terms of subscrip-tion ? We are not speaking with reference specially to thenew Society, for we know not what are the terms of admission.But if care be not taken, the subscriptions to the metropolitanassociations will become so heavy a tax on the profession,that, amidst all its troubles, the profession will begin to

decline them. The Medical and Chirurgical, the London, theWestminster, the South London, the Hunterian, the Hameian,the Medico-Botanical, the Guy’s Physical and various hospitalsocieties, besides many other local medical societies, to whichmay be added (for a large part of the members are medicalmen) the Royal Society, the Linnœan, the Microscopical, theEthnological, the Chemical; nay, numerous physicians andsurgeons are on the Councils of the Royal Institution, thePharmaceutical, the Zoological, and the Statistical Societies ;-and now arises the Patkological. Three guineas annual con-tribution to one, two to another, a guinea each to a dozenothers, (and we know some medical men whom the ties

of society, position, or inclination, have bound them to

nearly all) - these circumstances will soon make the

question of membership one of economy, and bring theyearly subscription under serious consideration. The sum

should be discussed in time, before alienations occur which willendanger the stability of many a valuable union. Neither

the Council of the PATHOLOGISTS, nor of any other Society,must be angry at this admonition. The season makes it well-

timed.

REFUSAL OF LICENTIATES OF THE APOTHECA-RIES’ COMPANY TO MEET GRADUATES INMEDICINE IN CONSULTATION.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Dr. Scott (who is an M.D. of Edinburgh University,and also a licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edin-burgh) informed me, a few days ago, that he was attending %serious case, respecting which he proposed a consultation,when it was agreed that Mr. Morley (M.R.C.S. & L.A.C.)should be sent for. On meeting, Mr. Morley stated, that hecould not attend professionally, in consultation, any one whowas not a licentiate of Apothecaries’ Hall. Having previouslymet Mr. Morley myself, in consultation, I considered it myduty to write to him on the subject, which I did as follows :-

" DEAR SIR,—Dr. Scott has informed me, that you stated tohim, that you could not meet him professionally, because hewas not a licentiate of the Apothecaries’ Company. I am de-sirous to ascertain from yourself, whether such be the fact, asI am in the same predicament.—I am. dear Sir. vours trulv.

"J. CURRIE.

To this I received the following reply :-" DEAR SIR,—I desire not to lose an hour, before informing

you, that Dr. Scott’s report to you is quite correct. Indeed,I feel no little surprise, that you seem ignorant of the fact,that I have invariably declined to meet any illegal practi-tioner. When I had the pleasure of meeting you in consul-tation, some time since, I had not the slightest suspicion thatyou were practising illegally, or of course I should have de-clined to meet you. I act thus, just on the same principlethat I should cooperate, so far as my name goes, with my pro-fessional brethren, legally qualified, in condemning all illegalpractice. But you are not ignorant, that my own opinion is,that the present law should be so altered, as to constitute allwho hold a British diploma, including also Ireland, legal prac-titioners. This opinion I have always, at all times, and in allplaces, expressed. In the meantime, until the present law beso altered, I shall always feel it to be my duty, with all propercourtesy, to decline meeting in consultation a practitionerwhom the law does not recognise as entitled to practise."There is something very anomalous in the state of the

profession in Blackburn; for while I am by no means in favourof prosecuting men who hold Scotch or Irish diplomas, yet Icannot consider it, under the existing law, right or just, tomeet them; and, on the other hand, some of our medical menare in favour of prosecuting and meeting them in consulta-tion at the same time. There may be some inconsistency inboth views, though of course I think mine consistent.-I am,

"J. MORLEY.

Drs. Scott, Irvine, and mvself, having been informed thatseveral meetings had been held by the greater number of the


Recommended