199

mends inoculation, by means of a vaccinating lancet, with a solu-tion of sulphate of morphia.M. Lafargue recommends inoculation in the same way, with a

saturated solution of veratria ; and M. Roclauts, a Dutch physi-cian, gives nux vomica, in doses of from three to ten grains in thetwenty-four hours.I Suceinate of Ammonia in Delirium Tremens.-M. Scharn has

seen the most furious delirium overcome as by enchantment, andthe disease removed in a few hours, by the use of this remedyalone. = -

Arsenic in Peritoneal Dropsy.-Dr. Debavay has treated a casesuccessfully. One-twentieth of a grain was given twice a-day.The improvement was notable in six weeks, and in six monthsall symptoms had ceased, and the catamenia, which had beensuppressed, were restored.Mustard in the Convulsions of Children.-Dr. Triplu was led

to the employment of this remedy as an emetic, and finding itarrest in a few minutes an attack of convulsions that had lastedfive hours, he has employed it in three other cases with completesuccess.

Propllylactic Remedy against Ptyalism.-Dr. Schoepf recom-mends the following tooth-powder during the administration ofmercury, to prevent salivatiun. Dried alum, powdered, 9ij.;powder of cinchona, j. ; to be used by means of a soft brushmorning and evening.-Northem Journal of Medicine. ,

THE LANCET.

LONDON: SATURDAY. NOV. 9, 1844.

THE PROVINCIAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AND THE GOVERNMENT BILL.

A SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING of the MEMBERS of the PROVIN-CIAL MEDICAL AND SURGICAL ASSOCIATION has been convened,by the Council, to be held at the TowN HALL, DERBY, on THURS-DAY next, the 14th of NOVEMBER.The object of calling the meeting is stated to be, to take into

consideration the principles and provisions of THE GOVERNMENT:MEDICAL REFORM BILL.We earnestly hope that the attendance will be numerous,-that

the GENERAL PRACTITIONERS belonging to the Association willbe in their proper places on the occasion,-that they -will carrywith them 11 resolutions," prepared, in writing, embodying theirviews and opinions with regard to the measure which is to comeunder consideration,-and that they will not sanction such milk-and-water votes, such imbecile motions and puerile petitions, ashave been carried and adopted at a few-and, thank Heaven, onlya few-of the meetings of members of the profession which havebeen held on the subject. If the GENERAL PRACTITIONERS of

this country be not acutely alive to the peril in which they are nowplaced, and fail to adopt those decisive and vigorous measureswhich the aspect of the period demands, ruin, inevitable ruin,will be the doom of the majority of their number.At many of the meetings which have been held, the proceed-

ings were regulated under an incorrect impression as to theactualposition of the Government measure, and, accordingly, severalof the petitions that have been adopted, could not, in compliancewith the forms of the House of Commons, be received, with re-ference to that Bill. Numbers of the petitions, therefore, will befound to be informal, and may, accordingly, be rejected. The

profession ought to be made acquainted with the fact that themeasure of Sir JAMES GRAHAM is as much out of parliament atthis moment, as though it had never been presented to the House ofCommons, and the steps which the minister will have to take’With reference to that or any other Bill of the kind, must be(xJmmenced de novo in the forthcoming session. He must againask for the leave of the House to introduce a Bill for the better

regulation of medical practice throughout this kingdom, although,in his remarks, he may state to the House that the measurewhich he is desirous of introducing for consideration is the Billwhich he was permitted to lay upon the table in the precedingsession.A knowledge of this fact points clearly and unequivocally to

the line of policy that the profession should pursue. The reso-

lutions which ought to be adopted at meetings of the professionshould, therefore, be condemnatory of the principles and maiaeprovisions of the Government Bill of last session, and the petitionswhich are founded upon such resolutions should implore thatpermission may not be granted by the House for the introductionof any Bill for the government of the medical profession SIMILARto the measure of the last session. The petitions should also

specify, distinctly, the principles and details which are so stronglyopposed by the profession, and should conclude by explainingwhat ought really to be the enactments of any measure that isframed for placing the profession on an improved basis, and givingto the public the best security that can be derived from the exist-ence of a highly-educated body of medical practitioners, clearlydefining the principles on which the medical laws of this countryought to be re-constituted and founded.

In pursuance of this plan-that is, of petitioning the House,praying that no such Bill as that of last session may be again in-troduced,-public meetings-such as the one which is about to beheld at Derby-may address the legislature with telling effect,provided they speak plainly, intelligibly, and decisively.

But let it not for one moment be supposed that we wouldrestrict the duty of petitioning to societies or associations of anydescription.

Truly admirable will be the effect produced by petitions fromthe practitioners who form the MEDICAL PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATIONOF ENGLAND-from the President and Council of the BRITISHMEDICAL ASSOCIATION-from the members of the GENERALMEDICAL PROTECTION AssEMBLYņfrom the medical practi-tioners of the borough of ST. MARYLEBONE, the borough of theTowER HAMLETS, &c. &c., or from the county of SOMERSET, orfrom the county of LANCASTER, &c. &c.;ņbut we are confidentthat an infinitely greater impression will be produced as to theultimate construction of any Government measure on the subjectof medicine, by petitions from individual members of the medicalbody, lodged in the hands of those representatives in Parliamentwho sit for the places in which such petitioners may reside.Notwithstanding all the advantages that may be derivable fromthe system of petitioning we have first described, thoroughlysatisfied are we, that far greater benefits will be obtained fromthe latter, as it must have the effect of bringing into communica-tion with the members of Parliament, not merely the Presidentsor the Secretaries, of the different associations and societies, butall those members of the profession who are hostile to the prin-ciples of the Bill, and who may feel it to be due to their own in-terests, to the respectability of the profession, and to the securityof the public, to exert themselves, personally, in order to preventso unjust, stupid, and dangerous a measure from ever beingenacted into a law.

Earnestly, then, do we hope, not only that the principles whichare to be avowed in the petitions to the legislature, but that themode of petitioning, will engage the serious attention of the im-portant meeting which is about to be held at Derby. The BRANCB:ASSOCIATIONS IN THE COUNTIES, or a committee in each county,should be specially selected or appointed for carrying such a.

system of petitioning into full practical operation. An observance,of some years’ duration, of the proceedings of Parliament,enables us to state, confidently, that an opposition, thus offered,against the re-introduction of the Bill of last session, or the firstintroduction of any measure that may be at all disfigured bydeformities so odious in principle or policy as the one now beforeus, would present the fairest prospect of complete ultimate success.

Half a dozen words in repetition may not be misapplied :-The Government Medical Bill is not now before Parliament.The minister must again ask for leave to INTRODUCE a Bill

into the House of Commons for the better government of themedical profession.

All the public meetings of members of the profession, associa-tions, and societies, should petition against the re-introductio’la : :

200 THE PROVINCIAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE GOVERNMENT BILL.

so odious a measure as that of last session, or against the firstintroduction of any similar Bill.

Medical practitioners should petition individually against there-introduction into Parliament of the Bill of last session, or

against the enactment of any similar Bill; and they should placetheir petitions in the hands of those members of the Legislaturewho may represent the counties, cities, or boroughs, in which thepetitioners reside.

Further, they ought to embrace every possible opportunity ofeommunicating, in person, with members of Parliament, and sup-plying to them, by personal communication, correct views relativeto the imperfect constitution of the medical colleges, the anoma-lous condition of medical law, the wants of the community in re-lation to the practice of medicine, and the respectful, but resolute,unchanged, and unalterable demand of the profession, that theyshall be invested with the power of exercising the ELECTIVEFRANCHISE in the government of the medical colleges of this

kingdom.

SINCE the foregoing article was in type, our attention hasbeen particularly directed to the proceedings of the BATH

AND BRISTOL branch of the PROVINCIAL MEDICAL AND SURGI-

CAL ASSOCIATION, at a meeting held at Bristol, October 17th.We had determined not to refer, specially, to the conduct

which has been pursued at any of the public meetings of the- profession, until we had concluded, or nearly concluded, ouranalysis of the clauses of the Government Medical Bill; but twoxorrespondents whose characters and abilities we greatly respect,having written to us, in a tone of violent indignation, relative to

certain motions and resolutions, which one of them designatesas being " FOULLY TREACHEROUS," Or " GROSSLY IGNORANT," weturned at once to the report in question, and must state that we-have concluded our perusal of the resolutions with feelings of’sickening disgust. One would have supposed that if there had

-been a single honest reformer in the room, such a motion as the

following would have choked him on the spot :-Moved by a Dr. DILLON, of Bath, and seconded by a Dr.

13.ILEy, of Bristol, and carried-apparently without one word ofopposition,—-

" That the thanks of this meeting are DUE, and are herebygiven, to the Right Hon. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Bart., M.P.,: for" submitting to the House of Commons THE PROJECT OF LAWS*’ FOR REFORMING THE MEDICAL PROFESSION ; and that copies" of the resolutions passed here this day be transmitted to the"right hon. gentleman."*

c Who are these doctors, that have thus audaciously presumed- to thank the author of a Bill which is directed againstthe happiness, the respectability, and best interests of nineteen

:twentieths of the medical practitioners of this Kingdom ? "Who are

they," we repeat, that have thus dared gratuitously to offer such.an insult to their professional brethren? We again ask, " Who:are they?" What are their claims to public confidence; what aretheir medical titles, and where were those titles obtained ? Manyphysicians have acted nobly in the struggle now pending, and areentitled to the esteem of the profession for their exertions.

Their labours will not be forgotten. At one of the first meetingswhich was held relative to the Bill-we believe it was at

Lymington-the physicians, who took a leading part, honourablydistinguished themselves by repelling the attack which the Govern-ment had made on the interests of surgeons in general practice.We acknowledge, with feelings of thankfulness, the aid of suchlabourers in the cause; but such a resolution as the one moved byDoctor DILLON, and seconded by Doctor RILEY, at the branch

meeting at Bristol, and the adoption of somewhat similar resolu-tions in a few other places, ought to be held up as WARNINGSto the general practitioners-ought to ADMONISH THEM of

* The resolutions will be found reported at page 205 of this week’sLANCET.

the peril which may attend their cause by the pretended advocacyof a certain class of practitioners.Whatever course others may take, we are ourselves resolved

not to abandon that line of duty which we have steadily pursuedfor the last twenty years. Hence, we hesitate not to assert ourbelief, that if the general practitioners do not at once take the con-ducting of their affairs into their own hands, and exclude fromtheir societies and associations all persons who are not legallyqualified to be GENERAL PRACTITIONERS in this country, they willbe sacrificed, and that a combination of treachery, knavery, andignorance, will enable the minister to perpetrate their ruin.The necessity for plain speaking has arrived.There must be a new organization of the scattered powers of the

profession, or all will be lost. The general practitioners of Englandand Wales are the real surgeons and physicians of the people.The Dubs and Pures are the mere mushrooms which have

sprung up in the hot-beds of collegiate corruption. Look backto the records of history. From 1812 to 1815, when the associ-ated general practitioners of England and Wales were labouring,night and day, to procure an Act of Parliament for the betterregulation of medical practice in this country, and to provide forthe punishment of the quacks and pretenders of that period, bywhom were those zealous and able reformers opposed, resisted,thwarted, insulted? Why, by the physicians and pure surgeons ofthat period,-even by the Fellows of the College of Physicians,and the Council of the College of Surgeons. The former bodyprocured the insertion, into the Bill, of the clause which enabledall chemists and druggists who had pret’iously practised medicine,to continue that practice, without being subject to the penalties of thelaw. Thus the cause of the general practitioners was betrayed,and betrayed will it be, again and again, if they admit amongstthem, and allow their proceedings to be controlled by, otherclasses of practitioners, who are interested in heeping them down,and withdrawing from them the respect and confidence of thepublic. The Bill of the Government is a direct premium, a bribe,to the pure physician, to the pure surgeon, even to the steam-made " dub," whilst its enactment into a law must produce thecertain ruin of an immense majority of general practitioners, andultimately, as is asserted in the " Address" of the Society ofApothecaries, "DESTROY THEM AS A CLASS."

Will, then, the general practitioners take their proceedingsinto their own hands, and adopt all the requisite measures ofsecurity? Upon the practical answer which they may give tothis question will hang the issue of their fate. The Society ofApothecaries evidently dreads the interference of the pure phy-sicians and the pure surgeons. Well it may. Its invitation of

co-operation is, therefore, confined to general practitioners. Thisis honest and prudent. But what steps are to be taken to bringabout an union of interests which are strictly identical to theeffectual exclusion of elements which would be dangerous to theexistence of such a combination ?

This question induces us to ask another:-How long is the incubus of silence to remain upon THE CoM-

MITTEE OF " ASSOCIATED GENERAL PRACTITIONERS," consistingof such respectable surgeons as Mr. MoRAH, of Chelsea; Mr.WOOLEY, of Brompton; Mr. SEMPLE, of Islington, and othersnot less esteemed by their professional brethren ? This Committeehas continued undissolved from the year 1815 to the present time.It has at its command a subscribed fund for disposal, amountingto about Five hundred pounds. Mr. BLATCH, an able andactive member of the profession, is the secretary. He is also,we believe, officially connected with the Society of Apothecaries.The members of this Committee, by continuing in a state of suchindolence and indifferent repose at this critical juncture, areincurring a very serious responsibility. Presently they will beawakened from their long-continued sleep, by the rod of correct-tion, applied, probably, with no lethargic grasp, by the hands ofsome of the still-surviving subscribers to the fund.

201THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL BILL.

There is, we repeat, treachery in the camp, and, as the onlysafeguard against the base designs of its promoters and abettors,we would recommend-even to the breaking up of all the

medical reform societies-an UNION, firm and fast, consisting of allthe general practitioners of this country. The pure physicians,pure surgeons, and steam-manufactured dubs, who are friendlyto such an union, and to the objects for which it is established,will be delighted to witness the triumphant progress of its

labours ; and if they should feel any, the slightest annoyance, atbeing excluded, personally, from participating in the toils oftheir brother practitioners, still there are other modes whichwould enable them, very satisfactorily, to contribute to the suc-cess of the cause. On the contrary, those pures, of whateverclass, who are favourable to the Bill, and, therefore, unfavourableto the general practitioners, can find no fitting place in the ranksof men who are absolutely called upon to struggle, with feelings ofdesperation, for the maintenance of that position which theynow occupy in society.

THE contrast which we have exhibited in the treatment of thetwo professions-those of law and medicine-by the executiveGovernment of this country, has, we are happy to find, producedthe result which we anticipated. The one, as we have proved,has been characterized by nothing but favour and protection,the other, stigmatized by disfavour and destruction. Yet, withevidence so overwhelming and irresistible, the ministers of theCrown have added insult to injury, by boasting of the respectwhich they entertain for the members of the medical fraternity.We intended to close the protective branch of this subject in

the last LANCET. It was our purpose and our desire to concludethe remarks which we had to offer on the first clause, as a distinctprovision of the Bill. But we must add a few last words," inorder to give another illustration or two as to the aid which theprofession of the law derives from the favourable considerationof the Government, and also from the practice which is nowadopted in the courts of judicature. We feel the less reluctant toreturn briefly to the subject, from finding that we are preventedfrom bestowing the space which we intended to devote, in thisnumber of our journal, to the constitution and powers of theCOUNCIL. OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION. We are

anxious to submit the argument on the clauses which relate tothat projected institution atone view, in a single number of THELANCET.In order to accomplish this object, it is necessary that several

of the clauses relating to the projected Council should be printedverbatim, and submitted to the reader as the argument proceeds.The adoption of this plan obliges us to defer our analysis of theconstitution and powers of the Council until next week; but the

delay will be attended with this advantage, that the whole of thefacts and arguments on that branch of the inquiry will be sub-mitted to the reader in unbroken connexion.The name of " THE COUNCIL OF HEALTH AND EDUCATION"

appears to have seduced several of the members of our professioninto the utterance of some very weak speeches, and into an ex-pression of approval of the conduct of the Government-anapproval, which will be found, on a little further examination, tobe altogether unmerited. The name may be commendable

enough, but the most virulent of poisons and the worst intentionsmay be altogether disguised and concealed under specious garbsand fair titles.The Attorneys and Solicitors’ Act, as we have already proved,

refers, like the Apothecaries’ Act of 1815, only to England andWales, and thus it excludes from practice in these portions of theUnited Kingdom all the attorneys and solicitors of Ireland, andall the writers to the signet in Scotland. The Medical Bill, onthe contrary, proposes to admit into England, without examina-tion here, all the medical practitioners of Ireland and Scotland.

If the Irish and Scotch attorneys and solicitors are excluded frompractising in England for the benefit of the legal profession here,is it also for the benefit of the members of the medical professionwho are entitled to practise in England and Wales, that themedical practitioners from Scotland and Ireland shall be indis-criminately admitted into this country? í’ The Government iscalled upon to prove the harmony and justice of the two proposi-tions,-to adjust, in truth, what owe regard as irreconcilable discre-paneies,-to shew that two opposite principles are one,-that bothare rational and consistent parts of a system of legislation,-that the fact of one being advantageous and the other ruinous, isequally beneficial to the two professions to which the oppositepractices relate, and that both are equally advantageous to thepublic.

This, we apprehend, will be found to be a task of no ordinarydifficulty, and a minister who was possessed of less resolutionthan our "great mystery," or "great-medicine man," Sir JAMESGRAHAM, might shrink from engaging in such an extraordinaryand illogical enterprise. He will, however, be required to provethat the legal profession is entitled to protection, and that themedical profession is not. Exceedingly curious are we to learnwhat are the elements out of which his argument will be con-structed.

But before he will have the opportunity of displaying his rhe-torical powers on such subjects, it is probable that the Bill whichis now before the public will cause such a violent current of in-dignation to be directed against the ministry by the members ofthat body whose RUIN and DEGRADATION are contemplated, thatwe can hope, and even expect, a whole cabinet of ministers may

resolve on the propriety of abandoning, at once, and for ever,the iniquitous attack which it has directed against the medical

profession, and the best security for the health of the community.’ The profession has every motive for approving of only amoderately-good Bill. A drowning man, it is said, eagerly catchesat a straw. The distracted, the dissatisfied, state of the profes-sion may account for the respectful manner in which the Govern-ment has been thanked at some of the public meetings for theintroduction of a radically-bad Bill. This first step of the Govern-ment has been willingly hailed by many practitioners as the pre-cursor of something wise and valuable,-as the sign of goodintentions. So strong has been this feeling, that even a subsequentexamination of the imperfect provisions of the measure has nothad the effect, in several instances, of eradicating it from theminds of the gentlemen who have conducted the public meetings.The generosity of the profession in this respect has presenteda brilliant contrast to the injustice and illiberality of the Govern-ment.

Equally forbearing have been the speakers with reference to

the treatment which other professions have received from thelegislature ; although the taunts, reflections, and reproaches,might have been innumerable, scarcely a word indicative of dis-respect to the proposer of the Bill, or to the ministry, of whichhe is an eminent member, has been uttered. There have, it is

true, been exceptions to this forbearance, but they have beenfew.

.

We certainly do regret that, in a public discussion of thisquestion, the aid which the cause of Medical Reform mighthave derived from a bold reference to the legal profession has notbeen supplied at the public meetings. Selecting a pile of statutesin favour of the profession of the law, the speakers might haveconstructed even a paper-battery, that could have been workedwith irresistible force against the attacks of all the spoliators ofmedical interests.

The protection in favour of the legal profession is more

powerful and extensive than can well be conceived. It is the

living principle of our Inns of Court. It is the mighty bondwhich unites all the members of the legal profession into onedistinctive body. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the ruthless destroyer of

202 THE COUNCIL OF HEALTH AND EDUCATION.

the profession of medicine, is not a silent observer or an indif-

ferent spectator of the advantages which the members of theprofession of the law derive from a strict maintenance of a

statutory protective power, but he is one of its active supporters,-a zealous advocate for confining the practice of the law to

regularly admitted, regularly registered, regularly qualifiedmembers of that profession.The proceedings of the House of Commons furnished an ex-

ample of this description in the last session of Parliament. Itcan be explained in a few sentences.When the Poor-Law Amendment Bill was before the House

last summer-only in last July, just before the Medical Bill wasunder discussion, one of the clauses of that Bill attracted theparticular notice of Boards of Guardians, because they saw thatby it their Clerks were to be precluded, unless they were regu-larly-admitted Attorneys or Solicitors, from conducting any pro-ceedings on behalf of such Boards at any Quarter or GeneralSessions of the Peace.The clerks to the different Boards of Guardians are not, it is

true, Attorneys or Solicitors, but they are men of great experienceand intelligence, and, from long practice, are thoroughly con-versant with the proceedings of the Boards, and all parochialmatters.

At an immense saving of expense to the parishes, these Clerkshave been in the habit, for many years, of conducting appeals,and instructing Counsel at Quarter and General Sessions of thePeace. This practice was advantageous to the Boards, and pro-ductive of a great saving of expense to the different Unions.1 11 But," exclaimed the Attorneys and Solicitors, " this is very" disadvantageous to us. We are deprived by it offees that pro-perly belong to us." The Barristers who practised at QuarterSessions declared that the management of the causes by the Clerks Ito the Boards of Guardians was also injurious to them-that it Ideprived them of consultation and other fees, so completely au fait iwere the said Clerks in all matters in which the Guardians wereconcerned.

. Hence the interdict in the Act of 1843 against allowingClerks of the Boards of Guardians to take or conduct any pro-ceedings on behalf of such Boards, at any Quarter or GeneralSession of the Peace.The Boards, finding that this " protection" in favour of attor-

neys and solicitors put them to additional expense, and obtainedfor them less justice, than when their business was conducted bytheir own clerks, who were practically acquainted with all thelitigated matters, determined on endeavouring to procure a re-

laxation of the protective provision of the Act of 1843, so far asrelated to the practice at the Quarter and General Sessions of thePeace. Accordingly, the Clerks of the Boards applied to Mr.WAKLEY, and requested that he would move that there shouldbe introduced into one of the clauses of the Bill the followingamendment:-

" That it shall be lawful for any Clerk to any Board of6‘ Guardians, if duly empowered by any such Board, to make orresist any application, claim, or complaint, or to take and con-duct any proceedings on behalf of such Board, at any Quarter-or General Sessions of the Peace."

This amendment was opposed by the Government! Who was

the only member of the ministry that spoke in opposition to it?Why, Sir JAMES GRAHAM. And what was his argument? He

had none ; but he stated that it was " not without difficulty that" he had introduced the relaxations of the Act of 1843, already" to be found in the Bill-and that really he could go no" further."Of course the opposition of the Minister was successful, sup

ported, as it was, by the powerful legal interest in the House, andthus the " protection" afforded to the Attorneys and Solicitors bythe Act of 1843 suffered not that small infraction or diminutionwhich the introduction of the amendment would have effected. Out

of deference-out of mere deference, or regard, or respect-to theprofession of the law, that amendment was opposed by Sir JAMESGRAHAM. Yet, by it, a mere proposal was made that the officersexercising special and peculiar functions, which make them pecu-liarly qualified for the discharge of such a duty, should be per-mitted to conduct the law proceedings of the Guardians at Quarterand General Sessions of the Peace. " No," said the Minister;" I do not deny their competency. Far be it from me to contend" that there would not be a saving of expense to the parishes by" the adoption of such a measure ; but, really-I am very sorry-" I must not permit of any further interference with the profes-" sion of the law.’’

Contrast, we repeat, this conduct of the Minister with hisdestructive proposals relative to the profession of medicine. Thisis the Minister-this is a member of that executive governmentwhich has been lauded, usque ad nauseam, by some of the speakersat the medical meetings, for having introduced the QuACKS’PROTECTION BILL! I Such are some of the signs which affectedwisdom and pretended disinterestedness and consistency present ! IA morning journal, belonging to that political party of which

Sir JAMES GRAHAM was once, and is now, we believe, in

principle, a member, is the advocate of the Bill; but as that paperhas deliberately attacked the motives and character of the pro&s-sion, the worth of its advocacy cannot be unappreciated. That

journal is strongly in favour of the demolition of the protectivebarrier which now-inefficiently, it is true-encompasses theGENERAL PRACTITIONERS of England and Wales. What are the

principles and views of that same journal with respect to the pro-fession of the law ? The mottoes which indicate its principlesand opinions are these,-" For the law, ALL PROTECTION:’’ " For

medicine, NONE." Within the last ten days, the journal in.

question contained a furious attack, in a leading article, onMr. Baron RouE, one of the most respected and beloved of ourjudges, for allowing a Counsel at the Old Bailey to plead the causeof a prisoner, then on his trial, because that Counsel had notpreviously received his brief, in a regular way, from an attorneyor a solicitor ! In condemning this act of the Judge, the paperin question accused the learned Baron, in a tone of franticviolence, of highly improper conduct. Observe ! A poor

prisoner- man who, probably, is scarcely capable of musteringfive shillings in the world-is not to be defended, when on histrial, unless the facts of his case are submitted to the Jury by atleast two qualified members cf the legal profession - one ofthem having been regularly admitted to the BAR at an Inn ofCourt, the other having been regularly admitted as an attorneyor solicitor, according to the provisions of the Act of 1843.The selection of the Counsel had been made by Mr. COPE, a

person who, from his respectability and position, must be fullycompetent to decide on the capabilities of the advocates practisingat the Old Bailey. But the sagacity of the Governor was noextenuating circumstance in the estimation of our morningcontemporary. The practice was denounced in virulent

language, and the conduct of the judge grossly assailed. Thus,then, stands the question between the Government and such aclass of supporters, and the public. " If a person has an interest" to protect at law, his cause shall be conducted throughout by a" legally qualified attorney; and, if need be, by a gentleman re-" gularly called to the bar. The unimportance of the subject" matter in dispute is of no consequence-if he go to law, to a" regularly qualified attorney or solicitor shall fees be paid."That is the decree of the Government.

Then, on the other hand, " If a person wants medical aid,-if" his life be in danger, or the lives of’hisfamily, he may go where" he likes for advice and medicine, to any physician, any"

surgeon, any apothecary, any quack, any impostor, as it is

" not our intention to place any restraint upon medical practice," or to attempt to put down quackery." Notwithstanding sucha proclamation by the Ministers of the Crown, there are medical

203THE "ADDRESS" OF THE SOCIETY OF APOTHECARIES.

practitioners who can degrade themselves, and confess their ownignorance, by professing that they 11 HAIL WITH SATISFACTION"

"

the iniquitous Bill which the Government introduced in the lastsession of Parliament for regulating tlte practice nfmedicine in thiscountry.

REVIEWS.

An Address by the Society qf Apothecaries to the general Prac-

titioners of England and Wales, on the Provisions of the Bill’for the better Regulation of Medical Practice throughout theUnited Kingdom,’ and their probable Influence on the Positionand Prospects of that branch of the Medical Profession." *

IN this Address, the Society of Apothecaries has boldly de-nounced the Government Bill. We quote from it the intro-ductory" and " concluding" remarks. The other portions ofthe Address consist of dissections of the different clauses of the

measure. It will be seen, by the concluding extract, that theSociety is not yet prepared with a plan which it could recom-mend for the adoption of the general practitioners of this

country; but when it is in possession of more information onthe subject, the Society " will be prepared to co-operate with itsprofessional brethren in endeavouring to procure such a measureof medical reform, founded upon broad and liberal principles, aswill satisfy the reasonable wishes and expectations of the generalpractitioners themselves." The Society, therefore, willingly andcheerfully throws itself into the ranks of the medical reformers.If the members of the College of Surgeons discharge the dutywhich they owe to themselves and the public on this occasion,the crest-fallen Council of that institution will be obliged to

adopt a similar proceeding. True, the Council of that body willnot join our ranks cheerfully and willingly, as the Society ofApothecaries has nobly done, but would do so from the opera-tion of a cause which is not likely to obtain for it the thanks orthe gratitude of the profession.The " Address," from which we quote the following passages, is

printed for gratuitous circulation amongst general practitioners,any one of whom can obtain a copy at the Beadle’s Office, Apo-thecaries’ Hall, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, on an application,made either personally or through the medium of some agentwhom he may authorize to apply for it on his behalf. The" Address" is advertised in the papers of this week, under thetitle of " Medical Reform," and the advertisements state that itmay be procured in the manner we have described. Evidently,we live in strange times. The elements which are now at work

in the cause of medical regeneration are in a state of portentouscommotion, heaving and working in curious places. In former

times, we had reason to condemn the Apothecaries’ Society. Of

late years, a change of policy in the conduct of that body hasobtained for it many sincere commendations in the columns of

THE LANCET. The course which the Society has now taken isan honourable and a bold one, and will be acknowledged withfeelings of satisfaction by the general practitioners of this king-dom.We shall quote some of the criticisms, on the respective clauses

of the Bill, which are very ably and effectively written, on futureoccasions. We fear that much treachery is at work in the fieldof our operations ; but we have alluded to this circumstance else-where, and shall necessarily recur to it at an early period. The

following are the remarks:-

"Upon the introduction of the Bill itself, the Society feltcalled upon to state publicly and unreservedly, the impressionwhich a perusal of its provisions had produced upon their minds,and it was with unfeigned regret that they found themselvescompelled to admit that the Bill fully realized the apprehensionwhich had been generally entertained with respect to it. The

Society stated, that in their judgment its scope and tendency wereto degrade, if not to destroy, the class of general practitioners, bytaking away from them the control over the education and ex-

* London, 1844. Published by S. Highley, 32, Fleet-street.

amination of their own class, by repealing the existing checksupon the practice of unqualified persons, and substituting no pro-visions by which such persons might be prevented from prac-tising in future. The Society at the same time proposed tothemselves the duty of a deliberate examination of the provisionsof the Bill, and promised, at a proper season, to offer an opinionupon the whole measure in a more detailed form.

" In redeeming this pledge, and proceeding to lay before theirprofessional brethren the result of a careful examination of ameasure, having no less an object than the better regulation ofthe practice of medicine throughout the United Kingdom, theSociety approach the subject with a deep conviction of its im-portance, and with a sincere desire to enter upon its considera-tion with the temper and calmness which its importance demands.They have already publicly stated that they would hail with theutmost satisfaction the introduction of a measure, under the highauspices of a minister of the crown, which would have the effectof removing the anomalies which at present exist in the profes-sion, and of healing the dissensions to which those anomalieshave given rise. They gladly avail themselves of this opportu-nity of repeating that statement. They have observed withpleasure, and cheerfully admit, the existence of features in thepresent Bill, which must, in their opinion, find a place in anywell-considered measure of medical reform; for instance, theestablishment of a Council of Health, uniformity of educationand reciprocity of practice in the three kingdoms, and a generalregistration of all qualified practitioners. They have no wish tooverlook these features; but believing, as they do, that thedirect tendency of the Bill, as a whole, will be to degrade, andeventually to destroy, the class of general practitioners of thiscountry, the Society would feel themselves unworthy of thetrust which they have so long held, if they shrunk from the dutyof exposing the dangers which threaten the class to which theythemselves belong, and a large portion of whose members havebeen educated under their auspices. The Society disclaim anyintention of imputing to the right honourable gentleman bywhom the Bill has been introduced, that he desires what theBill (if it becomes a law) will assuredly bring about. He hasbeen obliged to derive his information on the subject on whichhe proposes to legislate from others; but that his advisers can beignorant of the tendency of the Bill which they have counselled,it is hardly possible to believe, for if the avowed object had beento depreciate the standard of qualification of the general practi-tioner of medicine, to lower his professional status, and to dimi-nish his claim to public confidence, it would be difficult to havedevised a measure better adapted to the purpose.

" From the Society’s connexion, as a public body, with thegeneral practitioners of England and Wales, it is almost unneces-sary to premise that in the observations which they are about tooffer, they propose to confine themselves to the influence whichthe Bill is calculated to exercise on that class of medical practi-tioners. For although, in their investigation of the measure, theyhave not failed to direct their attention to the whole of its pro-visions, in order that they might the better estimate its effectupon the interests of the general practitioner, they consider itbeyond their province to express any opinion upon its probableinfluence on the interests of other branches of the profession."-pp. 5-8.

>B< ’" :n >B< *

" We have now brought our investigation of the severalclauses of this Bill to a close, and in looking at the result of thatinvestigation, we can only express our deep regret, as one of thebodies intrusted with the medical education of the country, that aminister of the crown should have been induced to lend thesanction of his name to a measure so injurious to the interests ofa large class of the profession, and to the welfare of the public atlarge,-injurious to the interests of the profession, because it re-moves the protection which men who have educated themselvesin obedience to the laws are entitled to expect from the laws,-and injurious to the welfare of the public, because whatevertends to discourage the medical practitioner in the acquisition ofprofessional knowledge, and to render him less fit to undertakethe charge of the public health, works an evil from which thepublic are the certain and immediate sufferers. It is no exagge-ration to say, that the measure is one which offers more directencouragement to the ignorant pretender than to the legallyqualified practitioner, because, while it deprives the legally quali-fied practitioner of all his existing privileges, and leaves it uncer-tain to what extent, and for how long a time, those privilegesmay be restored to him, even after he has purchased his registra-tion in compliance with the Act, it confers a positive boon uponthe ignorant pretender, inasmuch as it repeals the existing penalchecks upon his practice,-it legalizes that which was beforeillegal,-and elevates his character and position in the same pro-portion that it depresses and degrades that of the legally qualifiedpractitioner. It is true that the present Bill does not confer upon