93

THE LANCET.

LONDON: SATURDAY, JAN. 25, 1845.

FABRICATIONSJRESPECTING THE COLLEGE OF &URGEON8.

WITHIN the last few days the attention of the profession hasbeen attracted to a notice which appeared in The Times news-

paper relative to some alleged projected " changes" in the constitu-tion of the ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND. The

statement did not originate with The Times, but was copied intothat journal from a weekly periodical. The source whence itwas derived havingbeenacknowledged by The Times, the membersof the medical profession were relieved from the necessity ofattaching to it the slightest degree of importance. If the editorof The Times had been acquainted with the publication in ques-tion, he certainly would not have extracted from it any announce-ment, the truth of which had no other support than the authorityof such a disreputable journal. Had not the article in questionattracted notice by its publication in a paper, so universallyread as The Times, we should not have bestowed upon it a singleobservation. Even now it is almost a labour of supererogationto remark to the profession, that the entire announcement is a

stupid invention. Substantially, it does not contain one word oftruth. There has been no correspondence between the Counciland Sir JAMES GRAHAM on the subject of a "supplementalcharter." No propositions relative to a new charter have beenadopted by the Council. No provisions relative to the principlesof any such document have been sanctioned by the Council; no"details" on the subject have been arranged by the Council.

Consequently there is in existence no " supplemental charter,"and, therefore, obviously enough, no " earliest possible day" hasbeen named for appending to such a charter "the sign-manual ofher Majesty." Thus, the whole announcement is a tissue of

falsehood, a gross imposition. Doubtless, the members of the

Council, by the acts of the majority, having reduced themselves toa most unenviable position in the estimation of their professionalbrethren, have become seriously alarmed at the present aspectof the cause of medical reform ; they naturally enough perceivethat their fortunes and interests in the College are endangered.With fitful impulses of troubled feelings they have assembled,and unwillingly confessed their direful apprehensions as to thefuture, asking each other, with tremulous anxiety, " What can be" done to avert the force of the impending storm ? How is the" wrath of thousands of injured men to be appeased? How is. the" present value of the pecuniary interests of the holders of life-

" seats in the Council to be secured?" Ah! that is the questionof questions with our generous-minded Councillors,-the devotedlovers of science, the contemners of the " trading general prac-titioners." That the Council, like any other detected and ex-

posed culprits, should adopt contrivances for evading the

punishment which threatens them, is natural. But do they pro-pose to make a just or liberal reparation for the insults whichthey have offered to, and the wrongs which they have inflictedon, the thousands of members of the Corporation of which theyare, unfortunately, the ruling body ? The course they are at pre-sent pursuing, offers the best answer to that question. They areagain concocting their measures in secl’et,-in the dark,-unknownto, and unobserved by, thepress, thepublic, the MEMBERS of theirown College,-nay, even by their own electors-the Fellows. U3itil’

the last charter was obtained, the Council did not partake of the

elective character. They held their seats for life, and chose theirown colleagues. Now there is an electoral body, amounting innumber to upwards of five hundred. Three of the Council are

to relinquish office at the end of every year ; and three Coun-cillors are then to be chosen by the electoral body. Constitu-

tionally, then, the character of the Council has been subjected toan organic change by the late Charter,-one which renders thatbody responsible to the electors. In practice, however, the

Council pertinaciously and scandalously adhere to their previousexclusive character and habits. The last Charter, says The

Times, was obtained by "hole-and-corner means." And what

description shall be given of the proceedings of the Council,since its constitution has been subjected to a fundamental change?" HoLE-AND-CoRNER" is the term which is strictly ap-

plicable to them. The meetings of the Council are still held

with closed doors, and all the business is conducted secretly,- unheard by the profession, unnoticed by the press, un-

observed by the public. But what is the position of the Fellows,-the electors What kind of " responsibility" is that which with..holds from the elector all knowledge of the conduct of his repre-sentative? ? The House of Commons is an elective body. The

speeches of its members are published; so are their votes onevery question which is pressed to a division. Now the Councilof the College of Surgeons is an elective body; but the proceed-ings of its members, their speeches, their motions, their votes, areall kept in the dark-are pertinaciously withheld from the know-ledge of the electors. Is a body which thus acts, worthy of theslightest respectful consideration or confidence? Previously toobtaining the new charter, the manoeuvres of certain partiesin the Council were exceedingly disreputable. The members

-upwards of ten thousand in number-were kept in entire

ignorance of all that was taking place, until the fatal resultwas secured. After the Charter was in operation, after the in-strument for perpetrating the mischief had been completely andfinally formed, after it had existed and been acted upon duringabout nine months, Mr. GEORGE JANES GUTHRIE, one of theCouncil, sent a petition to the House of Commons, praying tobe heard at the bar of that House, by himself or counsel, againstthat Charter! He did not inform the members of the College ofwhat was going forward while the mischief was being perpetrated; ibut, after it was completed, and the means of prevention no longerexisted, then did he sound the trumpet of alarm! Unhappily, how-ever, GEORGE JAMES had allowed the catastrophe to precede thewarning. Mr. LAWRENCE would attribute his tardiness in

coming forward in proper time, to extreme " modesty." For our-

selves, we have no explanation to offer on the subject.The conduct of the Council is so inexplicable-the members

of that body are such extraordinary beings-that it is essential,in order to know them, that they should be allowed to becometheir own commentators. Other persons cannot comprehend suchpeculiarities, still less can they describe them. As the Councilhave been so prodigal of insults to the thousands of incorporatedmembers of the College, it is but just that those members shouldknow the opinions which the councillors entertain of each other:In turning THE LANCET upon them, it is probable that a veryamusing and edifying vivisection may be performed. The

members of mature years, they who have acquired some stand-ing in the profession, whose diplomas have been obtained aquarter of a century, must be anxious to learn what are those

high qualities of intellect, those nice feelings of honour, those purenotions of propriety, which could have induced the Council to

94

exclude them from the Fellowship.* It is a reasonable anxiety, andone that ought to be removed. From our unpublished 11 curio-sities of Medical Literature," we have selected, upon this occasion,the following sketch of that well-known member of the Council," THE MODEST AUTHOR," and, incidentally, the point of the ope-rator’s instrument has touched two other members of the Council;thus-including the dissector himself-there will be developed,in this single sketch, some of the peculiarities of a sixth portionof the entire number of that body. As the principle of exclusive-ness on which the Council have acted in the creation of Fellows,would seem to imply that they possessed claims of a superiororder in morality and intelligence, that proceeding must be abeneficial one which enables them to make correct representationsof themselves. In publishing the following sketch from the pen ofMr. WILLIAM LAWRENCE, now one of the Council, but formerly,in conjunction with ourselves, an active medical reformer, we haveto apologize to him for having so long excluded it from our pages.It is printed from the manuscript of Mr. LAWRENCE, withoutthe alteration of a sentence, word, syllable, or letter :-

° " THE MODEST AUTHOR.

THAT real merit is modest and unobtrusive, while empty pre-tensions are accompanied by conceit, vanity, and noisy boasting,is a matter of common observation. In persons of the former

kind, great abilities, splendid and useful actions, are agreeably Cox) -trasted with simplicity of character and a moderate estimate oftheir own consequence; while, in the latter case, the alliance ofpresuming impudence and noisy claims with slender talents,scanty acquirements, and trifling performances, excites our dis-gust and contempt. Mr. GUTHRIE has contrived to signalizehimself so much of late, that we naturally inquire whether hismodesty is commensurate with the other qualities which havemade him so conspicuous and notorious. It will be found thathe forms no exception to the above general observation; that,highly as we may estimate his abilities, his contributions to sur-gical science, his general and professional character, he is no

less remarkable for retiring modesty, and the humblest estimateof his own powers and performances; in short, that he has themost just claim to the name we have already given him, and bywhich we doubt not that he will in future be generally distin-guished-that of the MODEST AUTHOR. We feel bound to shew

that this honourable appellation is richly merited, and we proceedto do this without regard to the blushes which our complimentsmay excite in the object of them. iWe believe that Mr. GuTHBiE’s mode of spelling his name is aproof of his modesty, and that it arises from a desire to concealillustrious descent. He is, if we mistake not, the son of Mr.

GUTHERY, who gained the highest reputation in his profession,that of chiropodist, and maker of bougies and plasters. WhetherMr. GUTHREE had the usual royal sanction to this change of name,we know not; but we conclude that his modesty would have ledhim to do it quietly, so as not to attract notice.

Without particularizing earlier displays, we shall proceed atonce to the 11 treatise on Gunshot Wounds," in which this amiablequality is shewn in its full strength. The mode of its display issomewhat peculiar, so that a little explanation is necessary to

prevent misconstruction, and to set in a proper light those effu-sions which many have erroneously regarded as signs of brazenimpudence. The pronoun I occurs fourteen times in the first

paragraph of the Preface, and is plentifully scattered through therest of this characteristic performance; but no considerate personwould accuse the author of egotism on this ground merely. It

* The Editor of this Journal obtained his diploma in 18! 7. He is one ofthe excluded. Young gentlemen who were admitted in 1841, have had the’J honour" of the Fellowship thrust upon them.

was a case of necessity. Here were splendid discoveries andimportant improvements, and the public were enjoying the benefitof them without having the most distant idea to whom they wereindebted. Our author was obliged to assert his claim boldly,and we are persuaded that his delicate feelings must have beengrievously hurt in thus vindicating his own rights. He shews

very clearly that the superior advantages of early amputation inserious injuries of the limbs was his own exclusive discovery. Itwas absolutely necessary for him to discard all mock modesty,and to assert his title to his own property, for Mr. SAMUEL COOPERhas represented in his Dictionary, under GUNSHOT WOUNDS, notonly that LARREY, but that many former writers had advocatedthe same practice. Now LARREY is merely a Frenchman, and wetrust that Mr. COOPER is too good a patriot to lay any stress on afew years in a contest for priority between a foreigner and one ofhis own countrymen. As to the older writers, both English andforeign, whom Mr. COOPER has raised from their literary sepul-chres, and brought together as advisers of early amputation, wecan only say that such a mode of proceeding is unfair, and thatthis kind of perverse industry would play the very devil withmodern discoveries. However, as Mr. GUTHRIE directly assertsthat he found out and introduced the plan of early amputation,we rather suppose that Mr. COOPER, although usually accurate,has fallen into a complete error on this occasion. In the samePreface and work, Mr. GUTHRIE is obliged to violate his modestyrepeatedly, by laying claim to other important discoveries; andit is no less strange than true, that he would be robbed of allthese, if we were to credit the representations of Mr. CooPER andother writers. His modesty, however, is sufficiently shewn bythe manner of stating and defending his claims. He says of his

opinions, " I was contented to allow them to find their way asunobtrusively as possible into the world, satisfied they wouldstand the test of investigation, and be ultimately adopted as PRIN-CIPLES. In this I was not mistahen."

Again: respecting the errors of Mr. HUNTER, our author ob-serves,-" It was not on the single point of amputation that thisreasoning led into error; it embraced the whole subject of in-flammation and its consequences, which I believe can only be con-sistendy viewed on the principles regarding the human constitutionwhich I have adduced." As the question is merely betweenGEORGE JAMES GUTHRIE and John HUNTER, and on the subjectof inflammation, we think the former fully entitled to assume abold tone without any impeachment of his modesty.

Again: " The division I have made into constitutional andlocal mortification, and the practice I have indicated to be fol-

lowed in the different species of gangrene, from whatever causethey may have originated, as dependent on the distinction, areimprovements which many are inclined to adopt, without beingaware to whom they are indebted for them." Who could expectMr. GUTHRIE, modest as he is, to remain silent under such pro-voking circumstances ?

Again: " The practice of the Peninsular war led to anotherimportant result in surgery; it dissipated that delusion which hadso long obtained possession of the minds of surgeons of everydescription, that it was impossible to command the flow of bloodthrough the great arteries.’ 1 overturned at once this hypothesis,declared it to be visionary, and not only without foundation, butthe reverse of fact." Ignorant cavillers will ask what proof thereis that surgeons of every description did not know that the flowof blood through a large artery could be stopped by pressurebefore Mr. GUTHRIE told them? Why, there is his positive asser-tion ; if they will not believe, after that, they must doubt on, andbe d——d.

Although what has been adduced might be deemed sufficient,further illustrations of our author’s modesty remain; and they aretoo striking to be omitted. This quality shines forth most con-spicuously in the " Lectures on the Operative Surgery of the Eye."" In reprinting this work, I only find it necessary to add, that

95

there is no single book extant containing so much information onthe subjects of which it treats." We were a little startled by thisat first; not on account of the labours of VETCH, WARDROP, LAW-RENCE, RICHTER BEER, and WELLER,-for no one would think ofputting them in competition with the great GuTHRiE;—but thereis the practical Synopsis of Diseases of the Eye of a TRnvERS;"equal to the Essay on Constitutional Irritation for deep patho-logical research, valuable practical instruction, methodical arrange-ment, and perspicuous language. How could Guthrie thus con-

temptuously undervalue the production of a brother member ofthe "bat-club"-of one leagued with himself in opposition to thelicentiousness of the medical press, and in the endeavour to restorethe medical profession to that state of mental torpidity andstagnant repose, so congenial to the nature of bats? Passing overthis slip, which we do not pretend to defend altogether, we stillregard the declaration as very modest, when viewed in connexionwith the extraordinary and perfectly original doctrines disclosedin the work. In this valuable volume, Mr. GUTHRIE teaches usthat the eye is not delicately organized, that it is nearly insensible,that it not only may, but ought to be treated with great freedom,or rather violence, and hence that the roughest operators havebeen the most successful. He very properly inculcates the neces-sity of removing the ancient errors on these points from the mindsof students, and of impressing on them his own more correct andtruly novel views. In justice to his claims as a discoverer, andfor the information of the public on a point of so much import-ance, we quote the very words of the MODEST AUTHOR, as themost appropriate conclusion of our remarks

" Public opinion, which on medical subjects is generallyerroneous, although for the most part founded on professionalauthority, is in no instance more injurious than in relation to theeye. It pronounces it to be an organ of a very delicate nature,

exquisitely sensible, requiring the greatest delicacy of touch andthe utmost nicety of management; which opinion some oculistsformerly found it convenient to support, and which the publicmay still continue to believe without any great disadvantage; butstudents in surgery must be taught otherwise. They must learn thatthe eye is not a delicate organ; THAT IT WILL SUFFER MORE COM-PARATIVE VIOLENCE WITH LESS INJURY THAN ANY OTHER OF

IMPORTANCE IN THE BODY ; that, so far from being exquisitely sen-sible, it is, when exposed in a healthy state, NEARLY THE REVERSE,only becoming permanently so on the occurrence of inflammation;and that the ablest and most successful operators are neither the mostgentle nor the most tender in their proceedings."" Few persons can, however, duly estimate the liberties that

may be taken with the eye until they have seen several operationsperformed, when the false ideas they have imbibed will be com-pletely removed, and new feelings will arise, in admiration of thebenignity of the Creator, who in rendering the eyeball NEARLY IN-SENSIBLE, enabled it, in its quiescent state, to undergo thoseoperations which are frequently necessary for the recovery ofsight" "

We hardly dare to add a word, for fear of weakening the im-pression which the native simplicity of these beautiful passages isso well calculated to produce: we would not attempt to paint thelily, to gild refined gold, or add a perfume to the violet. Butour admiration of the author’s piety breaks through all restraint;we cannot command our feelings when those affecting images areset before us. The kindness of the Creator in making the eyenearly insensible, that it may endure the rough operations andthe threefold caustics of Warwick-street! We will merely add,for the information of the profession and the public, that the sin-gular and interesting truths, thus happily brought to light, havebeen reduced to practice with the greatest success by their inge-nious discoverer, who has thus supplied to the pupils and visitorsof the Warwick-street Infirmary abundant opportunities of" duly estimating the liberties that may be taken with the eye IImore especially since he realized the grand idea of the " threefold

increase of the stimulating plan." If our author had not experi-enced that unexpected and unseasonable fit of modesty whichprevented him from keeping his appointment with us in theCourt of Common Pleas, we should have gratified him and in-structed the public by producing some choice illustrations of hisfavourite methods of treatment by rough operations and strongcaustics, for we have a considerable collection of well-authenti-cated cases. The interest of the scene would have been greatlyheightened by that testimony, which, as he informs us, his friendMr. TRAVERS had offered to give in favour of the additional three-horse power of stimulation.From the clear and satisfactory manner in which this distin-

guished surgeon and able writer on the eye went through his dif-ficult task in the case ofRoLFE v. STANLEY, we can easily judgehow well he would have defended the new principles and thepowerful practice of the modest author. We deeply lament ourown loss and that of the public; but the benignity of the Creator(as the pious G UTHRIE would say) has afforded some compensa-tion in the publication of his correspondence with his colleagueDr. FoRBES, and of the surgical evidence in the case just quoted.Who can now find any difficulty in accounting for the institutionof the " bat club," or in discerning the wise purposes to which itmay be made subservient? It is a holy alliance of kindredspirits, leagued in the common pursuit of the noblest objects, andsworn to defend each other against all the dangers to which theirzeal may expose them. Thus STANLEY mistakes a piece of flintfor a piece of the patella: his friend TRAVERS is ready to swearthat he should have made the same mistake, which nobodydoubts. The practice of the modest author is called in question;the friendly aid and oath of TRAVERS are at his command; hisbrother " bat" is ready to swear that the human eye is nearly in-sensible, that it ought to be roused from its apathy by the strongestcaustics, and that these may be safely raised to the third power.What jury or what surgeon could withstand this triple testimony?STANLEY, TRAVERS, GUT]aniE-admirable trio!-so well matchedin talent, in surgical judgment and skill, in professional and gene-ral eharacter! The great exertions of these eminent men, and oftheir associate bats," are now accumulating materials so rapidly,that the historian must soon commence his labours. The historyand exploits of the " club" are, however, too copious a theme forus to enter on at present; we shall merely congratulate thatcelebrated institution, and the Council of the Royal College ofSurgeons, on their good fortune in having the " modest author"for a member."

The unexpected appearance of this vivid sketch on the table ofthe conspirators at the College of Surgeons, may operate, possibly,on their affrighted minds as a mirror wherein they can discoverthat the medical profession of England understand the actualworth, the intellectual and moral position, of the men who havehad the audacity to inflict numberless insults and injuries upontheir faultless professional brethren.

A PUBLIC meeting of members of the profession residing overa most extensive district in the neighbourhood of Cirencester, washeld in that town on Saturday last. Mr. WARNER, a highlyrespectable surgeon of Cirencester, was voted into the chair.The speeches delivered on the occasion were characteristic of anearnest spirit in the cause of Medical Reform, and exhibited athorough knowledge of the subject. The, resolutions were

strongly condemnatory of the Bill, and in favour of formingan immediate junction of the gentlemen who attended the meet-ing, with the National Association of General Practitioners.No fewer than sixty members, on that occasion, engaged to enroltheir names, comprehending, with very few exceptions, all the

medical practitioners resident in a district extending over an area.equal in space to more than a quarter of the county.

96WE are delighted to learn that the enrolment of GENERAL

PRACTITIONERS in the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, having Mr.PENNINGTON at the head of its numerous and highly-respectableand influential Provisional Committee, is proceeding in a mannerthe most satisfactory to the true friends of the cause of medicalreform. The successful establishment of just principles in themedical polity of this country appears now to be certain; and allwho desire to participate in the honour and influence of obtaininga liberal Charter of Incorporation for the great body of themedical practitioners of this kingdom, ought to consider it to bea paramount duty to join the Association without delay. The

conductors of the provincial medical schools, unless they desireto see their public establishments annihilated, should promote, byevery means in their power, the complete organization of theprofession. When the members are associated, and can make anational display of their intelligence, moral power, and numericalstrength, then, and not until then, will the parliament devotethat attention to the medical reform question which its importancedemands.

THE LECTURES OF LIEBIG.

THE subjoined letter from Dr. GREGORY, the distinguishedPROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY in the University of Edinburgh, willbe read with feelings of extreme satisfaction by the friends andadmirers of the celebrated LIEBIG. We have so often urged uponthe profession the cultivation of Organic Chemistry, as- the meansof filling up the blanks still found in physiology, pathology, andpractice, that we sincerely trust the publication of the lecturesof LIEBIG will begin a new era of medicine in this coantry. It

cannot be too often repeated, that the residual phenomena of lifeand disease, after observation and experiment on the vital

powers have almost become exhausted, belong to chemistry. Andat.’this moment, that science, having itself undergone a marvellousand sudden development, offers the test of the balance, to decidethose, questions belonging to organic matter which have hithertoappeared to be out of the field of inquiry. But before the materialsof the living body and the substances it eliminates can be accu-rately analyzed, and their elements qualitatively and quantitativelydetermined, we must know their re-actions, and modes of forma-tion, in the laboratory. We must trace the mutations and trans-

formations they undergo in all possible combinations, and wemust accurately estimate the influence of temperature and otheragencies upon them. It is with the test tube, the retort, the

lamp, and the re-agents of the chemist, in skilful hands and bywell-exercised minds, that the field must be taken against diseases,and we do not doubt the result. In speaking thus of Che-

mistry, no candid reader will for a moment accuse us of beingindifferent to the other branches of pathology; we only seekto make this as popular as the investigation of the physical signsof disease has become.

To the Editor C/’THE LANCET.

"Mv DEAR SIR,-I have just read, with much satisfaction, theremarks which you have made in the number of THE LANCET for thellth instant, on the very great value and importance of the Lec-tures on Organic Chemistry, by Professor Liebig, now appearingin your valuable periodical.

11 As a teacher of chemistry, and as one who has devoted muchattention to Organic Chemistry, I beg leave to add my voice toyours in earnestly urging on students of chemistry the carefulstudy of those admirable lectures. Of course, the student mustmake himself familiar with the notation employed; but that is soondone and he cannot read too often the beautiful introductorydiscourses.

" With reference to the subjects hitherto treated of by ProfessorLiebig in THE LANCET, I do not hesitate to say that his lec-tures afford more sound instruction in Organic Chemistry than isto be obtained from any other quarter whatever. Moreover,they are full of new and highly suggestive views; so that even

those most familiar with the subject must be struck with the richmines of thought which they open up in every direction. Andwhile such is the character of the lectures hitherto published,which extend only to a small part of the subject, I can assureyour readers that they will find the interest to deepen at everysubsequent step, as the author advances to those parts of his sub-ject which bear directly on physiology and pathology. I speakin this from positive knowledge of Professor Liebig’s most recentviews.

" You state that these lectures have given you a much higheropinion of the merits and genius of Professor Liebig as a philoso-pher than you formerly entertained. That is but natural, con-sidering that the only writings of Professor Liebig previouslyknown, in English, embodied the results of the labours of manyyears, and those results, being often startling and unexpected,led persons unacquainted with the details of his progress to lookon him as, in a great measure, a theoretical and speculativewriter. It is, however, as you justly observe, impossible to readhis lectures without perceiving that such is not the characterof his intellect; and that, on the contrary, he is alike distinguished.by acuteness and accuracy in observation, by sagacity in tracingthe relations between observed phenomena, and by strict adhe-rence to the Baconian rules of induction in drawing his conclu-sions. It is but just, however, to Professor Liebig to state, thatall who have followed his career from the beginning, and havebeen familiar with his very numerous and important experimentalresearches, in the original German, have uniformly entertainedthe same high opinion of his genius as a philosopher and dis-coverer, which the present lectures will so powerfully contributeto establish in this country.

" In conclusion, I would emphatically repeat, that the Lectureson Organic Chemistry which have appeared, and are still to

appear, in THE LANCET, are worthy of the most patient and re-peated study, and will long hold the first place among all workson the subject. I would also take this occasion of agsin directingthe attention of my medical brethren to Professor Liebig’s pro-found researches on the urine, published in THE LANCET lastJune, which are, in my humble opinion, a perfect model of whatresearches in physiological chemistry ought to be; and iur-*nish a very striking instance of the sagacity with which obser.vations, apparently trifling, are so employed by Frofessor Liebigas to lead to conclusions of the highest practical importance.

" I remain, yours very truly," WlULIAM GREGORY.

"University of Edinburgh, isth Jan. 1845." "

THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL BILL.

MEDICAL PROTECTION ASSEMBLY.Exeter Hall, Monday, Jan. 20.

N. M’CANN, ESQ. IN THE CHAIR.

AGREEABLY to an advertisement convening a meeting of themedical profession, to consult with the committee of the Pro-tection Assembly " upon the expediency of seeking from theCrown the converting of the College of Surgeons of Englandinto a College of Medicine, Surgery, and Midwifery, with therepresentative and protective principles," or "the incorporationof the general practitioners into a new College of Medicineand Surgery."

After some general business had been transacted, and theannouncement by the secretary of the receipt of subscriptionsfrom J. V. Asbury, W. H. Holt and A. Holt, Esqs. of Enfield,and H. Ringrose, Esq. of Potters-bar, the subject for the considera-tion of the meeting that evening was introduced by

Dr. LYNCH, who stated that they had met to hold a consultationwith their brethren upon the course most advisable to pursueduring the ensuing session. They were anxious to ascertain thefree and unbiassed sentiments of the profession. All gradeswere equally interested in the question. Invidious distinctionswere unknown in the Assembly. They struggled only for thecommon weal. (Cheers.) They intended to hold similarréunions every Monday evening. There were two leadingquestions now occupying the attention of the great body of theprofession: first, whether it be expedient to petition for a charterof incorporation for the general practitioners, or to convert theCollege of Surgeons into a College of Medicine and Surgery, withthe representative principle. The Doctor then took a retrospectof the career of the Assembly, from the time they first metto protest against the charter, and the unjust and ignominoustreatment of the members of the College by the Council;the exposure of the delinquencies of the Council; the injuryinflicted on science by their selfish by-laws ; the absurddivisions in medicine and surgery; the importance of mid-