199

it caused the abstraction of blood and sti-mulants. There appeared to be a reversestate to that of inflammation ; but extremesoften met; and great discrimination wasnecessary as to treatment. Of course the

pulse afforded a great indication in this.You would not give stimulants with a fullbounding pulse-in delirium tremens therewas a sharp, thready, quick, irritable pulse.

Dr. WHITING recollected a case in whichalady experienced illusions from cerebraldisease, which was treated by large dosesof mercury. The illusions were sometimesdisgusting, sometimes beautiful. She re-

covered, but became blind.Dr. LEONARD STEWART remembered a dys-

peptic lady, aged 60, who drank two or

three glasses of strong brandy and waterdaily. Becoming rather poorly at a. time ofgreat mental excitement, she was throwninto a " nervous fever," and afterwardsbecame subject to spectral illusions of chil-dren. Her usual stimulant and good dietdid not restore her, but small blood-lettings,of six ounces, twice the first day, and twicea week for six weeks afterwards, nourish-ing food, and no brandy and water, renderedher so much better that she had not sincesuffered one illusion.Mr. BRYANT had lately seen numerous

cases of fever in the poor, who would getstimulants if possible, in whom there wasevident congestion, with low delirium, whenfirst brought into the sick ward. With asmall quantity of their usual stimulus, thetongue got cleaner, the pulse better, andthey generally improved.Mr. CLirTON knew a blind old lady, who

spoke many languages, being subjected tothese illusions for years, but they were onlyexcited after taking coffee. Her health wasgood.The Society then adjourned.Previous to the discussion Dr. UWINS

requested to know if he was at liberty tomention cases which had come under hisobservation, without reference to any doc-trine. He was induced to ask this questionfrom the manner in which some cases werereceived at the last meeting of the Society ;he did not consider the members had treatedhim well on that occasion. He was com-

menting further on the previous discussion,when he was stopped by the PRESIDENT,who begged, if any cases were to be re- lated, that Dr. Uwins would at once proceedwith them. Dr. JOHNSON said, that if hahne-mannism was again introduced, he shouldleave the Society, whereupon Dr. UWINSwith some warmth said, " Then I shall leav ethe Society," and accordingly walked out.[Our report of the discussion on homoe-

opathy, on the 24th instant, we have notroom for this week, again. It shall appearin the next LANCET.]

THE LANCET.

London, Saturday, October 29, 1836.

REGISTER VAGARIES OF THE APOTHECARIES’ COMPANY.

THE City of London is notorious for its

medley of corrupt and contemptible char-tered companies; but of all the disgracefulbodies of this description, there is not one

which, for rottenness and insolence, for

uselessness, and, at the same time, vaunt-

ing pretensions, can for a moment stand acomparison with the incorporated drug-dea-lers of Rhubarb Hall. The audacious

UPSTARTS who control the educational de-

partment of that disreputable concern,

literally had their small wit driven out oftheir shallow brains by the powers whichthey derived from the enactment of the

legislature in 1815. So utterly besottedare they in conceit, so anxious are they toexercise their authority, so thoroughlyproud of their functions, that they shrinknot from committing any species of follyrather than refrain from a single act whichis calculated to annoy the medical students

of this metropolis, or render those younggentlemen the objects of insult, even beforetheir hired menials.

One of the stupid vagaries of this upstart,impertinent Company, is that of compellingpupils who design to be candidates for the

licence, to apply at " the Hall," and regis-ter their names within a certain number of

days from the period when they have com-menced their attendance on lectures in the

medical schools, and unless such " regis-trations" be made, the candidates are notadmitted to an examination, but are spurnedfrom the doors upon a mere matter of

form.

Now these old beldames are fully ap-prised of the fact, that the " registration"of students does not afford the least pro-tection for securing an attendance upon the

lectures for which they have registered.They are aware that it offers no guarantee

that the pupil will even remain in the

200 WHOLESALE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.

itnetropolis for one hour of the period whichis specified in the registration; moreover, the

Company have nut sufficient cunning to

conceal the fraud which they tolerate byadmitting as " recognised*’ testimonials,documents which go to prove that a pupilis actively engaged in serving an appren_ticeship in York, and is diligently occupiedin attending lectures in London, at one andthe’ same time, in the self-same month, in Ithe self-same year.

° ’

For example: suppose a studen-t who has Ibeen articled as an apprentice to an apothe-cary at Exeter, or York, and who up to thepresent month having served one-half of thefive years required by the Act of Parlia-ment, comes to London, pays his money for

Ihis " tickets " to some one of the " schools,"applies at the Hall, and is then registered asa pupil in attendance on the classes to whichhe has entered. Now, one of two thingsmay happen. Either the student may re-

main in London to attend the lectures, or,

he may return to Exeter or York to complywith the terms of his indentures. It does

not, however, follow that he must do one ofthese two things. After having registeredhe may start on a tvalr of pleasure, and seenothing either of the apothecary in vhe

country or the lecturers in Londen, until,he returns to the metropolis to receive

(i six weeke’ ol- tivo months’ grinding, pre-vious to the 15th of April, 1839, when hewould be entitled, according’ to the dates ofhis " certificates" and " registration," to beexamiued for his licence. On producinghis " recognised" documents,—on referringto the " Register" at the Hall,—on offeringhis indentures for inspection there,—what isseen on the face of them? First, the docu-ments signed by the lecturers, testifying thatthe candidate has been " diligently occu-pied" since the ist Oct. 1836, iu attendinglectures and medical practice in London dur-

ing the two years-and-a-half immediatelypreceding April;, 1839,—and, secondly, the indentures which at the same time v ouch for

the fact, that the identical candidate has beenoccupied during the whole of the specified

period, in learning the art and mystery of auapothecary, as an apprentice, with Mr.

PHARVIACOIIOLIST, at Exeter or York! Or,

it may be a fact, that the whole of the

months, with the exception of abouteilht

weeks, (which have been passed in keen,active, grinding,) between October, 1836,and April, 1839, may have been occupiedin making a tour, or in the enjoyment of the

sports of the field, or the stream of this cotin-try. Although there had been no attendance at the hospital, no attendance in theclass-room, the old ladies at Rhubarb Hallknow full well that the certificates from the

"recognised" schools would be received,that the indentures would be accepted, andthat the candidate, unless he exhibited thespirit of an independent young Englishmanbefore his pettyfogging saucy examiners,would become a licentiate of the worshipfulcompany. And this is the scheme which

these conjuring witches have devised "forthe precention of fraud ! "

The dates of the testimonials and inden-

tures prove indisputably that the partypro-ducing those documents cannot, by possibi.lity, have conformed with tli3 stipulationswhich they contain, that he canalot possiblyhave resided both in Exeter and in London,

’ during two years-and-a-half, at one and the! same time : yet these virtuous sticklers fortheir " system of registration " and cther

fooleries, - these insolent pretenders to

honesty,—admit the candidate to an exauu-nation, and filch out of him his money for alicence which does not qualify him, by Iav,,’to practise as all apothecary in England andWales !

This question is one of deep importance;it merits the serious attention of the profes-sional reader, and we earnestly admonish allmedical students who intend to apply fortheir licences to examine the subject tllo-

roughly, and fortify their conduct by a strictadherence to the spirit and the letter of thelaw. On several occasions, when it has

been discovered, that candidates for the li-

cence have produced testimonials which badbeen improperly obtained,—such as false

201BY THE APOTHECARIES’ COMPANY.

certificates of age, and other deviations from

the statute, and the by-laws of the Court of

Examiners, - the offendin-- parties have

been proceeded against by indictment fortheir misdemeanours, their licences have

pro-fed to be worthless, and the culprits havebeen subjected to disgrace and imprison-ment. In some of the cases, the of’ences in -

volved merely a breach of the by-laws ofthe company. In other instances, the chargescomprehended violations of the statute of1815. In both descriptions of oflences con-uctions were obtained when the allegationswere fully substantiated by evidence before

ajury. In order, however, to sustain the in-dictment when the allegation consisted ofan ofence against the by-laws laid down forthe observance of students, a conviction

could not be obtained unless the by-lawsthemselves were good in law ; that is, wereframed in conformity with the powers whichthe Court of Examiners could legally exer-

cise,-asery just and wise provision ; other-wise students would not enjoy a moment’s

security against the tyrannical dispositionwhich that ignorant body of men has so re-

peatedly exhibited.We do not complain, then, that students

pay the penalties if they do not obey thelavr. Submission to the decrees of the legis-ture is one of the first duties of a goodcitizen. Violations, therefore, of the statutesof the realm, when they are proved, must

necessarily, in order to sustain our institu-

tulions, be visited with sufficient punish-ment to deter others from committing thelike oS’ences. If, therefore, a student obtainhis licence by means of false certificates,by viclitting the conditions of the Act of

1015,—in a word, by fraud,—he is liable toa prosecution for the misdemeanour,—he isnot a legally-quaiiiied apothecary, as his

licence i:- invalid,—he could not practise asan apothecary without subjecting himselfto an infliction of the penalties hamed in the

Act,—and he could not recover, in a court oflaw, any sum of money for medicines andattendance for which he had charged, as an

apothecary. The prosecutions and convic-

tions which have been instituted and obtain-

ed by the Company against offenders in these

respects, prove, most incontrovertibly, the

accuracy of these statements. ,

But are medical students alone liable to

punishment for violations of the law ? Are

the candidates for the licence of the Apothe-caries’ Company to be subjected to punish.

ment for breaches of the law, and shall themembers of the Court of Examiners be

permitted to escape with impunity? Shall

the candidate who has obtained his licence

by improper certificates, or by the aid ofsome trifling informality, be punished byimprisonment for the misdemeanour,-beexposed for practising as an unqualifiedperson, and be mulcted, in reality, of all the

advantages which the licence would confer,- shall, we ask, an individual thus cir-

cumstanced be exposed to these dangers andsevere visitations, and yet culprits of graveryears, whose very trade is fraud, be permittedto escape without suffering pain, penalty,or exposure? Both law aud reason answer

peremptorily in the negative ! Already has itbeen stated how severely the licentiates maybe punished for obtaining their licences bymeans of falsely-testifying certificates,-bydeviating, in fact, from the regulations whichare issued by the Company. This, un-

doubtedly, is an oifence, if these regula.tions be framed " according to law." But

what are the Examiners themselves in the

habit of doing? :’ Why, in fact, they areguilty, systematically guilty, of violatingthe provisions of the I5th clause of the

Act. Yes; we charge them with auda-ciously and knowiugly BREAKING THE LAW,by admitting to an examination students

whose testimonials furnish the proof thateither the act of the legislature, or the regu-lations of the company, has been, or havebeen, vi’jla.ted in their persons. Will

the Examiners assert, will they have thebrazen impudence to allege, that they do notgrant licences to candidates whose inden.tures of apprenticeship, and whose testi-monials of attendance upon lectures prove

iucontrovertibly that the candidates have

202 WORTHLESSNESS OF APOTHECARIES’ HALL SCIENCES.

been sometimes for one, and sometimes

for two years, differently occupied, in

two places, situated scores of 2itiles asunder?Yes. Pupils, whose testimonials establishthis astounding fact, are admitted as " qua-lified candidates for examination," and re-ceive the licence. Yet the act of 1815 has

decreed, that unless an apprenticeship of

five years be actually served to an apothecary,the examiners shall not admit them to an

examination ; and if they be admitted, andreceive the licence, that licence is not wortha straw, because the individual possessingit is, in the eye of the law, practising as an

unqualified apothecary. But let us quotefrom the 15th clause,-every portion of itwhich relates to the apprenticeship,-andthen it will be seen who are the law-

breakers, the students or the petty-foggingCourt of Examiners.

Section xv of the Act.—" Provided al-

« ways, and be it enacted, that no personshall be admitted to any such examinationfor a certificate (a licence) to practise as" an apothecary, unless he shall have served" an apprenticeship of not less thanfive yearsto an apothecary."

These are the identical words of the Act.

No person shall be admitted to an exami-" nation unless he shall have seried an appren-

ticeship of not less than five years, to an apothecary." This is the development ofthe law upon the subject. When, therefore,the testimonials of the candidates prove that

any portion of an apprenticeship which

ought to be served under indentures, at a

place distant from the metropolis, has beendevoted to an attendance on lectures and

hospital practice in London, or elsewhere,the Examiners expose themselves to the

consequences of a prosecution-of an indict-ment-for a misdemeanour, by admittingsuch candidates to an examination. Yet

this violation of the law is committed bythe honest people at Rhubarb Hall on everyday that the students are admitted to an ex-

amination, and licences are granted (underJhese circumstances) to candidates ; and weare satisfied that there is not a lawyer in the

kingdom, whose opinion on a breach of lawis worth a pin, who will contend that anexamination so informally and so illegallygranted,-that a licence so informally andillegally obtained,-can confer upon its pos-sessor a right to practise as an apothecary inany part of England or Wales. Of course it

cannot be endured that the Examiners shallselect whatever section of the Act theyplease as the rule for their conduct, andreject the remainder as unworthy of atten.

tion. It cannot be allowed that any bodyof men shall set themselves up above the

legislature, and contravene the declarationin the Act of 1815, that candidates shall

not be admitted to an examination unless

they have served an apprenticeship to an

apothecary. Unless this ser1:itude have

been made, as it is a condition precedentto the examination, and to the obtainingof the licence,-the non-compliance of thecandidate with the stipulations of the law

disqualifies him from practising as an apo-thecary, although he is in possession of thelicence of the Company.When, therefore, the Examiners prosecute

students for occasional venial violations of

the statute and their own by-laws, theymight, we think, exercise some slight degreeof forbearance, and, at any rate, in enforcingthe registration at the commencement of the

session, not employ .their menial ruffians to

assault a body of gentlemen who attend

at the Hall to enter their names in obedience

to the commands of the upstart Company.They might recollect, too, as an additionalinducement to leniency, that they havethemselves been such wholesale violators

of the law, that thousands of men are now

practising in England as apothecaries, byvirtue of the licence of the Company, who,not having served an apprenticeship of fiveyears, as is ordered by the 15th clause ofthe Act, are engaged in their professionalduties illegally, are incapable of recoveringfor any charges they may make for medicinesand attendance,-and are exposed, daily, to

prosecutions as unqualified medical prac-

titioners. Entrapped into the commission

THE ASSASSIN-LIKE PUFFER. 203

of these offences, placed in this unfortunateposition, by the beldames of Rhubarb Hall,who, while they affect to be influenced intheir conduct by feelings of pure virtue and

disinterestedness, are themselves literallysteeped to thée-hin in fraud. When themedical committee of the House of Com-

mons is re-appointed, we promise these un-relenting persecutors of the medical students,that the breaches of the law which theyhave committed, and the numberless licenceswhich they have granted in nonconformitywith the stipulations of the statute underwhich they exercise their functions, shallbe thoroughly investigated, and fully ex-

posed.

WE learn, with feelings of surprise, thatthe lecturers of the School in Aldersgate-street consider that it was our objectto impute to them the manufacture of

the scandalous EADY-LIKE puff which waslately printed concerning that school in thecolumns of the " Medical Gazette." If it

contained any imputation on the conductorsof that school, it was one which had refer-ence to ignorance, and not to infamy. But

we had no intention to subject the lec-

turers, as a body, to the frightful accusation

of writing in a journal, the secret and’hiredconductors of which had been guilty of thecowardly and assassin-like crime of reply-ing to statements of facts and argument byinfamous insinuations againstthe private andmoral character of the writer to whom theywere opposed. Mr. WALFORD has written

to us, disclaiming all knowledge of the

paper in the 11 Gazette" until he saw the ar-

ticle in print. The disclaimer of Mr. WAL-

FORD was altogether unnecessary. We had

not the remotest intention of connecting that

gentleman, or his colleagues, with one ex-

ception, with the fabrication of the disreput-able puffin the still more disreputable « Ga-zette." It certainly is no trifling offence, inthe eyes of the profession, to be associatedwith the hirelings of a journal, in the pagesof which general practitioners in medicine,-the fathers and brothers of medical stu-

dents,-have for years been systematicallyabused, and the students themselves held

up to ridicule, as " NOVICES, GREEN AND

FRESH FROM THE COUNTRY."

THE ALDERSGATE HIRELING.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR :—One of TEsop’s fables applies with

admirable force to the gentlemen in Alders-gate-street. Indeed, a very trivial altera-tion will make the cases alike. If theteachers of that school choose to render theservices of their editor-colleague useful totheir establishment, they cannot complainof your dealing with them à-la-husbandman.It is not fair that because a publicationhappens to have a person connected withit who is a teacher as well, that the pub-lication should be prostituted to the pur-poses of the school in which the lecturerhas a share. I hope, Sir, you will not bedeterred by the abuse of Dr. Cummin, fromdoing justice to this shameless puffery, soinjurious to fair competition. I wonderMessrs. Longman can be so inattentive to

. the interests of their journal as to allow itto be sunk by this misapplication to the

private interests of those who are not share-holders in the ricketty thing. Yours re-

spectfully, A MEDICAL STUDENT.

"THE HUSBANDMAN AND THE STORK." The husbandman pitched a net in his

field to take the cranes and geese whichcame to feed upon the new-sown corn. He

caught several, both of cranes and geese,and with them a stork, who pleaded hard forhis life, and, among other apolog-les,..allegedthat he was neither goose nor crane, but a

poor harmless stork, who performed his dutyto his parents, to all-intents- and purposes,feeding them when they were old, and, asoccasion required, carrying them from placeto place upon his back. All this may betrue,’ replied, the husbandman, but, as Ihave taken you in bad company, and in thesame crime, you must expect to suffer thesame punishment.’" Moral.—If bad company had nothing

else to make us shun it, this might be suffi.cient,-that it taints a man’s reputation asmuch as if he were versed in the wicked-ness of the whole gang. What is it to the

sufferer, if the thief who robs him givespart of the money to build a church? Is thelatter less a thief? Shall a woman’sgoing toprayers twice a-day save her reputation, it

she be known as a lying gossip? Such mix-tures of religion and sin convince us that

the latter was not committed in ignorance;and when we so neglect our reputation as to3keep bad company, however little criminalwe may be in reality, we must expect the

’ same censure and punishment as is èarned--by the most notorious of our companions."