662

Moved by Dr. ANDREW WOOD, seconded by Dr. LAWRIE,and agreed to,-" That the salarv of the Registrar and Secre-tary be £150 per annum; and that he be allowed to employsuch assistance from el-eyl, as may be necessary during the firstyear."Moved by Dr. ALEX. WOOD, seconded, by Dr. WATSON, and

agreed,-" That the Registrar be authorized to procure thebooks and stationery and other appliances necessary for con-ducting his business."Moved by Mr. SYME, seconded by Dr. CHRISTISON, and

agreed,-" That the Registrar be instructed to write in thename of the Scottish Branch Council to the Lords of the Trea-sury, requesting that apartments may be furnished by Govern-ment for the carrying out the provisions of the lledical Act;and further, that it be remitted to Dr. Alex. Wood and theRegistrar to make arrangements for accommodation in themeantime. "

Moved by Dr. ALEX. Wood, seconded by Dr. LAWRIE, andagreed to,--" That Mr. Syme and Dr. Christison be appointedTreasurers, and that an account be opened with the Bank ofScotland. That all cheques on the bank shall be signed by oneof the Treasurers, in addition to the Registrar. That the Re-gistrar shall not retain in his hands more than .6100, but shalllodge all moneys as they accumulate in the bank, to the creditof the Scottish Branch of the General Council of Medical Edu-cation and Registration."

Resolved, on the motion of Dr. ANDREW WOOD, secondedby Dr. WATSON,-" That three be a quorum at meetings of theScottish Branch Council, and that the Registrar be authorizedto issue summonses for meetings, on the requisition of the Pre-sident, or of two of the members of the Branch Council."

Resolved, on the motion of Dr. LAWRIE, seconded by Dr.WATSON,-" That Dr. Christison and Dr. Andrew Wood beappointed to co-operate with the Registrar in the business ofthe Registration."

Resolved, on the motion of Dr. ANDREW WOOD, secondedby Dr. WATSON,-" That the Registrar grant a stamped receiptfor all fees received from applicants for registration, and thathe shall note on such receipts the qualifications of the appli-cants. "

Dr. Christison produced a draught of an advertisement inregard to the provisions of the Act. The Council returned’thanks to Dr. Christison, and approved generally of the draught.It was remitted to Dr. Christison and Dr. Andrew Wood torevise and prepare the advertisement for publication.

It was remitted to Dr. Alex. Wood and the Registrar toarrange regarding the papers in which the advertisement shouldappear.

(Confirmed) JAMES SYME.JAMES SYME.

THE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLANDAND THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL.

A CONFERENCE of Members and Fellows of the Royal Col-lege of Surgeons was held on Monday evening, at the Free-masons’ Tavern, for the purpose of considering the recent actof the Council of the said College in electing (to the exclusionof the Members and Fellows) a member to the General Councilof Medical Education and Registration, and to take such stepsas may be necessary to secure the corporate rights of the Mem-bers and Fellows.

Mr. J. LAVIES, F.R.C.S., having taken the Chair, the noticeconvening the meeting was read by Mr. Gant, the honorarysecretary. Several letters were then read from gentlemen prac-tising in the provinces, expressing their cordial concurrencewith the objects of the Conference.The CHAIRMAN then said, that the meeting had been called

to consider a question of great importance, materially affectingthe rights of the Fellows and Members of the College of Sur-geons. By an Act of Parliament passed during the last session,it was provided that a national Medical Council should be con-stituted, in which all the various bodies connected with themedical profession should be represented. The responsibleduties which might devolve upon that Council rendered itmost desirable that its members should properly represent thedifferent medical bodies or corporations by whom they werereturned, and the question for that meeting to consider waswhether the Legislature had contemplated that the represen-

tative of the Royal College of Surgeons should be elected bythe Fellows and Members generally, or by the Council of theCollege alone. Mr. Lavies read the 4th clause of the Act ofParliament, providing for the election of members of the Gene-ral Council, and after quoting extracts from the charters grantedto the Royal College in 1b43, in 1850, and in lb52, he con-tended that, according to the terms of those charters, theMembers in the first instance, and subsequently the Fellowsand Members, constituted the corporate body of the College,who were entitled to choose their representative in the GeneralCouncil. (Cheers.) In his opinion the representative of theCollege in the General Council ought not to be a party man,but one elected by a majority of the members of the College,and who would vigilantly watch over the interests of the largeclass whom he represented. (Hear, hear.) It could hardly behoped that this duty would be satisfactorily performed by amember elected by the Council of the College, for the interestsof that Council and of the members of the College generallywere not identical, and if the present state of things continuedto exist the great body of surgeons would in reality have norepresentative in the General Council. (Cheers.) The Chair-man bore testimony to the high private and professional cha-racter of the gentleman (Mr. Green) who had been returnedby the Council of the College to the General Council; but thequestion was one of principle, whether it was right, and in con-formity with the spirit and intention of the Act of Parliament,that the member representing the thousands of surgeons inEngland should be elected by twenty-four Fellows constitutingthe Council of the College. (Hear, hear.) The representativeof the London University had been elected in a similar manner,and the consequence had been that a storm of indignation hadburst forth amongst the members of the University, similar tothat excited amongst the medical profession. The GeneralCouncil was still in its infancy, but it might become an insti-tution of vast importance and extensive influence, and it was,therefore, necessary to take care that the interests of the mem-bers of the College of Surgeons were fully and fairly repre-sented in such a powerful and influential body. (Cheers.)Mr. BOTTOMLEY, or Croydon, in moving the first resolution,

while admitting that no exception could be taken to the gen-tleman who had been chosen as a member of the GeneralCouncil by the Council of the College, and whose eminence as asurgeon, as well as his attainments as a scholar, fully qualifiedhim for such a position (cheers), protested against the mono-poly of the appointment by the Council of the College as aninsult and a degradation to its Members and Fellows. Hemoved the following resolution:-" That, in the opinion ofthis conference, the Council of the Royal College of Surgeonsof England, having excluded the Members and Fellows of theCollege from a voice in the election of their representative tothe General Council of Medical Education and Registration,under the Medical Act, have thereby invaded the corporaterights of the Members and Fellows, and infringed the provisionsof the said Act; and further, that in the opinion of the con-ference a principle is involved in the said election which wouldsubvert the representative rights granted to the Members andFellows by the Legislature in that Act."

Dr. J. H. WILLIAMS, in seconding the resolution, observedthat, by the interpretation which had been put upon the Act ofParliament, the Fellows and Members of the College were de-prived of rights and privileges which there could be no doubtit was the intention of the Legislature to confer upon them.It was the opinion of high legal authorities that the courts oflaw would put upon the terms of the statute an interpretationin conformity with the views expressed by the chairman. Heobserved that medical reform had been demanded because thevery corporate bodies which now sought to monopolize theconstitution of the General Council had abused their trust, andhe asked how any confidence could be reposed in those bodieswhen all their corporate acts tended to show that they had noconfidence in one another. After some remarks on the generalquestion of medical reform, Dr. Williams concluded by second-ing the resolution.The motion was then put to the meeting, and was carried

unanimously.Dr. LADD then moved,-" That this conference cordially

approves the proceedings, up to this time, taken by the com-mittee which has acted on behalf of the Members and Fellows ofthe College; and, further, this conference empowers the com-mittee to name another day to hold a public meeting, or totake such other steps as may be necessary to ascertain theviews of the Members and Fellows in respect to the exercise oftheir corporate rights and the provisions of the new MedicalAct."

663

The resolution, having been seconded oy Mr. PococK, wasunanimously adopted.On the motion of Dr. O’CONNOR, seconded by Mr. DAY, a

vote of thanks was passed to the chairman, and the proceed.ings terminated.

Correspondence.

THE OPERATION OF LITHOTOMY,PROPOSED BY DR. MARSHALL HALL IN 1855, AND BY M. VALETTE

IN 1858, SUGGESTED AND PERFORMED WITH SUCCESSBY THE LATE MR. GEORGE BELL, OF EDIN-

BURGH, IN 1837.

"Audi alteram partem:’

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-In THE LAXCET of the 18th inst., there is a letter byMr. Wildbore, headed" The late Dr. Marshall Hall’s Pro-

position for a new Operation of Lithotomy." The letter refersto a proposition by M. Valette, of Lyons, of a new operationfor the removal of vesical calculi through an opening madeabove the pubis; and the object of Mr. Wildbore’s commu-nication is to prove that, in the year 1855, Dr. Marshall Hallheld, " as nearly as may be, the same views as those latelyad-vanced by M. Valette." Mr. Wildbore has succeeded in esta-

blishing this fact; but the " proposal" itself is, in reality, anold story now, for, in the year " 1837," a case was publishedin the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal (vol. xlvii.,p. 412), and is alluded to in Liston’s " Practical Surgery"(p. 409, ed. of 1837), which illustrates the principle on whichthe proposals of M. Valette and Dr. Hall are founded.The case occurred in the practice of my father, the late Mr.

George Bell, in the year 1829. The gentleman on whom heoperated was, at that time, eighty years of age, and survivedtill the year 1836.Having detailed the case, Mr. Bell concludes in the following

words, which clearly and succinctly describe the operation hehad successfully performed :-" My proposal is,-and it is my intention to follow it out

as favourable opportunities occur,-" 1st. To inject the bladder, and puncture above the pubis,

when the patient is in good health." 2nd. To allow the tube to remain in until the adhesive pro-

cess has destroyed the chance of infiltration." 3rd. To dilate the opening gradually as far as possible." 4th. If the size of the stone requires it, to enlarge the wound

with the knife, in the course of the linea alba."This proposal is the result of experience, and I believe it

to be thoroughly sound in principle. It is specially applicableto cases of stone in which the prostate is considerably enlarged.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,Atholl-place, Edinburgh, Dec. 1858. G. BELL, M.D.G. BELL. M.D.

LITHOTONY VERSUS LITHOTOMY.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-I have read in your number of last week the lateDr. Marshall Hall’s proposal of lithotony in the place of otheroperations for stone. I did so with the greater interest, havinghad to perform the operation he describes, not for the extrac-tion of a calculus, but for the relief of retention from old stric-ture, with coma, threatening early death.The operation which I performed, and to which I was shut

up from circumstances which I need not detail, was preciselythat recommended by Dr. Marshall Hall (minus the dilatingpart) - the thrusting of a trocar and canula between theos pubis and the peritoneum.The relief to the patient was prompt, the coma soon dis-

appeared, the urine came to pass mainly by the urethra, therewas no approach to any peritonitic symptom, and all seemedhopeful and promising, when cystitis began, the urine becameexcessively ropy, and my patient died exhausted on the thir-teenth day after the operation.

I scarcely see the propriety of the statement, that in thewhole course of this operation no texture is divided. Thebladder is not only opened, but subjected, for days, I suppose,to the irritation of the canula, and thereafter to a dilating

process-procedures which I should think very likely to origi-nate serious or fatal cystitis.

1 should have little difficulty in choosing for myself betweenlithotomy and lithotony.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,JAMES GREY GLOVER, M.D. Edin., &c.

South Shields, Dec. 1858.JAMES GREY GLOVER, M.D. Edin., &c.

REGENERATION OF THE SPINAL CORD.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-Numerous as are the recorded cases of uerves rapidlyhealing after division, and regenerating after a small excisionof their substance, I am not acquainted with any case of rege-neration of the spinal cord after complete division. The fol-lowing may therefore have some interest.

In the course of numerous experiments on the batrachia,some of which consisted in dividing the spinal cord in variousregions, to establish different independent centres of nerve-action, I found that a frog with the cord divided in the dorsalregion, after exhibiting for some weeks the most complete in-dependence in its anterior and posterior extremities, began atlast to exhibit a certain consensus. Originally, when the pos-terior extremities were pinched or touched with acid, theywere agitated, but the anterior remained motionless; and viceversâ. Sometimes the anterior segment crawled, dragging theposterior segment after it, like a log; at other times the poste-rior segment moved, and the anterior was quiet. No irritationof the one segment had any perceptible effect on the other seg-ment ; the two were as completely separated as if they hadbeen two different animals.About ten days ago I was showing a friend this interesting

example of two independent centres of nerve-action in oneanimal, when, to my surprise, instead of the anterior extre-mities remaining perfectly quiescent, when the posterior werepinched, a decidect agitation was visible in them, though of a

; slight character. This was so contrary to all that I had ob-served in the case of other animals, that at first I set it downto the wrong cause; but on reflection, it occurred to me that

there had perhaps been a partial regeneration of the spinalcord. The next day I tested this, and found unequivocalsymptoms of sensibility. Whenever the posterior extremitieswere pinched, the anterior were also agitated. It was evidentthat the two centres had become one, as respects sensibility;but the slight traces of a concensus of voluntary motions weretoo equivocal to admit of a decisive affirmation.

To-day, I find all doubt disappear. The concensus of volun-tary motions is so far re established that the frog (which, bythe way, haq only one hind foot), in crawling, uses the poste-

, rior extremities in aid of the anterior, awkwardly and ineffi-ciently it is true, yet in a manner unmistakably different from

his former mode. It will even make one hop, when much irri-tated! This shows that, to some considerable extent, there

has been a reunion of the sensory and motor centres, formerlyseparated. There are no longer two utterly independent cen-tres : whatever affects the one segment affects the other. Aconcensus has been re-established; and this would probablyhave been more perfect had the animal been left in perfectrepose from the period of the original section of its cord; buthaving since then been subjected to a variety of experiments,a perfect healing of the two ends has perhaps been prevented.

I am, Sir, yours truly,Richmond, Xov. 30th, 1858. G. H. LEWES.G. H. LEWES.

REMARKS ON CUPPING.To the Editor of THE 1,A.NCET.

SIR,-I was lately induced to turn my attention to themanner in which cupping is performed by the following cir-cumstance :-A patient who had been repeatedly dry-cupped on the chest

bore the marks of the rim of the glass branded upon the skinin several places. Upon inquiry, 1 found that this had beendone by a student who had not had much experience in cup-ping, and who, in exhausting the glasses, held them sidewaysin the flame of the spirit-lamp, and not only heated them taan unbearable extent, but also very seldom succeeded in get-ting them to adhere until after several trials. I have ro doubtthis often happens when students apply cupping-glasses forthe first time. Such being the case, I thought that the ancientplan of placing a piece of lighted cloth in the glass might withadvantage be brought to bear upon the subject, provided therewas an apparatus invented which would be more perLo-,iLent