14

port :-That it be a direction to the Executive Committee,in their future selection of visitors of examinations, so faras practicable to arrange it so that visitors shall not becalled upon to report upon examinations held in thatdivision of the kingdom in which the visitors themselvesmay be resident.The Council then adjourned.

TUESDAY, JUNE 22ND.ARMY RETURNS.

The returns from the Army Medical Department (seepage 13) were laid before the Council.The returns were ordered to be inserted on the Minutes,

and thanks were voted to the Director-General.

EXAMINATIONS IN ANATOMY.

Mr. MACNAMARA moved-,, That, in the opinion of thisCouncil, all examinations on anatomy should, as far as

practicable, include the performance by each candidate ofactual dissections, and that all those on surgery shouldinclude the performance by each candidate of two or moreoperations on the dead subject." It was more important,he said, for the student to be properly grounded in anatomythan in any other branch of medical science. Other subjectscould be worked up afterwards, but this could not. The

subject of anatomy was now enforced by the Royal Collegeof Surgeons in Ireland; and he was informed by a gentle’man very largely engaged in teaching that the attendanc(in the dissecting-rooms had been greatly increased in con.sequence. As to the practicability of his proposal, he wasinformed that at the Queen’s University as many as 12Ccandidates had been examined in actual dissections at oneexamination ; and the same system was adopted with suc-cess at Trinity College and at the Royal College of Surgeonsin Ireland. The fact that a candidate would be liable to becalled upon to dissect and operate would lead him to takeup the subject at an early period of his career.

Dr. PYLE seconded the motion.Dr. ROLLESTON said. the members were all at one as to

the importance of practical dissections ; the only differencebetween them was as to the methods of securing it. Hewould propose as an amendment-,, That it is desirablecandidates in examinations in anatomy should understandthat they may be called upon to perform actual dissections,and that candidates in examinations in surgery should un-derstand that they may be called upon to perform one ormore operations on the dead subject." The words 11 as faras practicable," in Mr. Macnamara’s motion, were, in hisopinion, somewhat too elastic. Every candidate should beobliged to go through a certain amount of constructive,synthetical, and microscopic examination. He thought thata candidate who could write a good paper, recognise dis-sections shown to him, and prepare microscopical prepara-tions, might be regarded a.s competent.The amendment of Dr. Rolleston was then put and

carried.THE COUNCIL AND THE LICENSING BODIES.

Dr. FABLES proposed-°‘ That the Registrar be directedto write to the several licensing bodies, and to inquire whatsteps have been taken to carry out the 17th, 18th, and 21stRecommendations of the Council in Section v., page 17(Professional Examination) of the ’ Recommendations andOpinions of the General Medical Council, 1874.’ "The Recommendations referred to are as follows :" 17. That the Council recommend that, in the case of

certificates presented before admission to the examinationsof the several licensing bodies, each should include a state-ment from the teacher or teachers that the candidate hadsatisfactorily attended examinations, from time to time, heldon the subject of study to which the certificate relates.(Minutes of General Council. Julv 15. 1874. n. 51.)"" 18. That it is desirable that, in the examinations on

several of the subjects of the curriculum-such, for example,as botany, zoology, chemistry, and materia medica-the areaof examination should be limited and defined. (Minutes ofGeneral Council, July 15, 1874, p. 51.)"

11 21. That it is desirable that observation with themicroscope should form part of the examinations of candi-dates for a licence. (Minutes of General Council, July 16,1874, p. 60.)"Dr. APJOHN seconded the motion.

, Sir D. CORRIGAN referred to the difficulty of carrying, out the recommendations in question.

Mr. TURNER thought that the recommendations should, be forwarded to the teachers of schools.

The PRESIDENT thought that the subject would be a fitone for the consideration of the Executive Committee, whoseattention, he believed, had already been called to it. He

thought that the matter should be left with the ExecutiveCommittee with the full understanding that they shouldmake the recommendations public in the way they thoughtbest.

Dr. SHARPEY said there was no provision in the MedicalAct for any official communication between the Council andthe schools ; all such communication should take place withthe licensing bodies.

,

Dr. THOMPSON said there need be no difficulty in thematter, because if the licensing bodies chose to act in ac-cordance with the recommendations, they had simply togive it out that their examinations would be shaped ac-cordingly, and all teachers would be then aware of the fact.Dr. WOOD doubted whether the licensing bodies had been

paying attention to the recommendations. If they weresent down as proposed the bodies must take cognisance ofthem.

Dr. BENNETT saw no objection to the motion of Dr. Parkes,but he thought that attention had really been paid to theCouncil’s recommendations by most of the licensing bodies.The proper course would be to communicate with thosebodies, who would give effect to the recommendations intheir requirements.Mr. MACNAMARA said that the College of Surgeons in

Ireland had, in deference to the wishes of the Council, in-troduced the microscope at its examinations.Mr. QUAIN alluded to the importance of class examina-

tions.Dr. ROLLESTON referred to the difficulties experienced in

reference to recommendation No. 17, and proposed, 11 Thatin Dr. Parkes’s motion the word ° 17th ’ be omitted, and thewords’19th, 20th: be introduced after the word ’18th."’No. 19 required the presence of two examiners, and No. 20stated that in no case should an examination be conductedwholly or in great part by the lecturer or teacher;

Dr. A. SMITH seconded the amendment.Dr. PARKES said he had not included Nos. 19 and 20 be-

cause they had been already referred to in the answers ofthe licensing bodies.

Dr. ROLLESTON said he objected to No. 17 on the groundthat the judgment of the examiners should be founded

entirely upon the actual examination independently of anycertificate of teachers, which might open the door to cor-ruption. If a candidate showed that he possessed adequateknowledge, it was really of no consequence how he came byit. They had no right to interfere directly with the methodsof teaching, but only indirectly by means of examination.With these they were potent to deal, but they need notinquire as to the mode in which knowledge was communi-cated. He was in favour of teachers having a share in theexaminations, but not of their keeping it all in their ownhands, and he considered that one examiner should have thepower of plucking.

Dr. PABEES said he would consent to include Nos. 19 and20 in his motion if Dr. Rolleston would allow him to retainNo. 17.

Dr. ROLLESTON declined to accede to this suggestion.Sir W. GULL thought that recommendation No. 17 in-

volved a dangerous principle. Examiners should rely upontheir own examinations exclusively, and he would voteagainst any rule giving weight to the certificates ofteachers.

Dr. STORRAR, alluding to recommendation No. 18, pro-tested against the excessive legislation in such matter"..which, he said, should be left to the common sense of ex-amining bodies.

Dr. WOOD said if Dr. Storrar was more acquainted withthe machinery of examinations, he would know that therewas a raison d’être for the regulation in question. The stu-dents were greatly overloaded with subjects for examination,and unless their areas were somewhat limited it was impos-sible to have a satisfactory examination. By such a limitationthe candidates could be examined more stringently than ifthe whole area were left open. He protested against gettingrid of the recommendation by the side wind of refusing to

15

send it down to the licensing bodies. It was appalling tothink of the number of rejections at some of the examina-tions, but he believed that if the recommendations of theCouncil were duly carried out, the evil would no longerexist. The same discredit did not now attach to beingplucked as formerly. A plucked man used to be reckoneda pariah, but now a student did not care a fig about it.

Dr. HUMPHRY said that Dr. Wood had given the realreason for the adoption of recommendation No. 17. Hebelieved that too much stress was sometimes laid on thefinal examination. Whatever the final examination was,there would be a system of cramming men for it in a shortspace of time. The great desideratum was, not the finalexamination, but good teaching. Where there was goodteaching there would be good men, and the great elementin good teaching was repeated examinations during thecourse of instruction. He therefore supported the retentionof recommendation No. 17.

Dr. QUAIN said that the recommendations had been de-liberately adopted by the Council, and he thought that adiscussion as to their propriety was now out of place.

Dr. ApjoHN said that at Trinity College periodical ex-aminations were held by the professors with great advantage.With regard to the limiting the area of certain subjectsreferred to, he feared that it would favour mediocrity anddiscourage high attainments.

Dr. THOMPSON thought that by sending down the recom-mendations in question, the Council would be diminishingthe weight of other recommendations as to which no suchinquiry was made.

Dr. SHARPEY thought that the transmission of the recom-mendations would be the means of eliciting some useful in-formation from the licensing bodies.

Sir D. CORRIGAN suggested that all the recommendationsshould be sent down, instead of selecting three or four.The propriety of the recommendations ought not now to bediscussed, the Council having deliberately adopted them ;nor could the Council now reopen the question as to therelative merits of education and examination. He concurredwith Sir W. Gull on that point, and dissented from theviews of Dr. Humphry. All they had to do was to ascertainwhether the candidates possessed the required knowledge.

Dr. PARKES expressed his willingness to adopt Sir D.Corrigan’s suggestion.

Sir W. GULL thought the best form of resolution would beto instruct the registrar to write to the licensing bodies toinquire whether they had any observations to offer to theCouncil on the recommendations of 1874 respecting theprofessional examination; and also to inquire how far theyhad been enabled to carry such recommendations intoeffect.

Mr. TURNER expressed his concurrence in that view.The other proposals were then withdrawn in favour of Sir

W. Gull’s, which was unanimously adopted.A COMPLAINT.

A statement was read from Mr. R. Vandaleur Kelly,licentiate of the College of Physicians and the College ofSurgeons, Edinburgh, complaining of the conduct of thePresident of the College of Surgeons in Ireland, in per-mitting Dr. G. Stokes, a fellow of that College (who, to-gether with himself was a candidate for certain medicalappointments in Ireland) to take a copy, which was certifiedby the President, of a record of the College showing thathe (Mr. Kelly) had been rejected at an examination in-stituted by that body, which record was made use of to hisdisadvantage by his rival candidate. The statement was

accompanied by a lengthened correspondence between Mr.Kelly and the College of Surgeons, Ireland, which was

also read.Mr. MACNAMARA explained, in answer to Dr. Wood, that

Mr. Kelly asked for an examination of the College of

Surgeons, because the licence of that body was necessary inorder to enable him to fill the office for which he was acandidate.On the motion of Sir W. GULL, seconded by Dr. QUAIN,

the Council resolved that the case of Mr. Kelly was not onefor their consideration.

STATE MEDICINE.

The following letter was read from the representative inthe Medical Council of the University of Oxford, respecting

fxamination in State Medicine, referred by the ExecutiveCommittee to the General Council :-

Anatomical Department, Museum, Oxford,February 9th, 1875.

SIR,-I have been requested, as the representative of theUniversity in the Medical Council, to lay the following re-solutions before the Medical Council

Extract from Report of f Cominittee on Medical Education of theHebdonzadal Councib of the University of Oxford.

That it is expedient to provide, or to assist in providing,an examination in the subject called State Medicine or sani-tary science."

" That it is thought best that such a qualification shouldnot be granted severally by different licensing bodies, but,like the qualification for general practice, should depend onan examination authorised by all, or as many as possible, ofthe licensing bodies acting conjointly."

Resolution of the Hebdomadal Council thereupon., That the medical representatives of the University beauthorised to inform the Medical Committee of Reference,and the Medical Council, that the Council has adopted therecommendations of the Committee, and is prepared to re-commend corresponding action to the University when theproper time arrives."

I am, Sir, yours faithfully,GEORGE ROLLESTON,

To the President Representative of the University of Oxfordof the Medical Council, in the Medical Council.

Mr. TURNER would be glad of a little more information asto the proposed examination and degree, and what the Uni-versity of Oxford had done in the matter.

Dr. STORRAR deprecated raising the question of Statemedicine with reference to the University of Oxford only;other bodies having taken action in the matter.

Sir D. CORRIGAN objected to letters being received from a.member of the Council (Dr. Rolleston), who, being present,could make any verbal statement that he might desire.

Dr. QUAIN said that Dr. Rolleston’s letter enclosed theresolution of an important body, which was very properlybrought before the attention of the Council.

Dr. PARKES said the subject was one of great importance,and he thought the Council ought to express approval ofany effort in the direction indicated.

It was resolved that the letter of Dr. Rolleston be enteredon the Minutes.

MISS GREENSTREET’S CASE.

A letter from Mr. Ouvry was read expressing an opinionthat Miss Greenstreet, whose case was mentioned at a pre-vious meeting of the Council, was not entitled to registerthe licence in midwifery which she had obtained from theKing and Queen’s College in Ireland.On the motion of Dr. Smith, seconded by Dr. Thomson,

the Council, acting on the advice of its solicitor, declined toregister Miss Greenstreet’s qualification.

FINANCE.

The following Report of the Finance Committee was readand received :-"The Finance Committee report that the income of the

Council during the year 1874 has been .S6004 6s. 2d., a sumwhich exceeded the income of the year 1873 by j8666 5s. 7d.The expenditure of the Council during the same period hasbeen g6882 16s. 9d., a sum which exceeded the expenditureof 1173 by C1757 13s. 8d. It appears that the expenditureof the year 1874 has exceeded the income of the year by thesum of .8S78 10s. 7d., and that the increase of expenditureduring the year in certain items is .81336 ls. 2d. Of thissum X688 18s. 6d. has been spent in reprinting the Phar-macopaeia and Additions, an outlay which is in course ofreimbursement. A second large item of expenditure is forhouse expenses, incident to coming into possession of thenew premiqes. On the other hand, a decrease in certainitems of expenditure to the amount of C262 7s. is shown,leaving a net increase of expenditure by the GeneralCouncil during the year 1874, as compared with 1873, of.81073 14s. 2d.

" In former reports approximate estimates of the incomeand expenditure for the year ensuing were given. Littleadvantage has resulted from this practice, and, as much

16

uncertainty must for the present exist as to the expenditurein connexion with the new offices and premises, it has beenthought undesirable to present an estimate for the nextyear.

11 The Committee report that, in accordance with the re-solution of the Executive Committee (Jan. 21st, 1875), theaccounts of the General Council were submitted for audit toMessrs. Quilter and Ball, professional auditors, and werefound correct. "RICHARD QUAIN, M.D.,"June 21st, 1875." Chairman.

REPEAL OF THE 46TH SECTION OF MEDICAL ACT.

A report was read from the Committee appointed to con-sider the proposed repeals of parts of the Medical Acts, sub-mitted to the consideration of the Council by Mr. Rickards,the Speaker’s counsel.Some discussion took place as to the privileges conferred

by clause 46, and several members expressed an opinionthat it would not be desirable to relinquish them. Ultimatelythe consideration of the subject was withdrawn.

It was moved by Mr. TURNER, seconded by Dr. A. SMITH,and agreed to, ,That it be referred to the Executive Com-mittee to employ an expert for the preparation of a generalindex of the first ten volumes of the Minutes of theGeneral Medical Council, to be printed before the meetingsof Council in 1876."The Council then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23RD.The Council again went into committee on the reports 01

the visitations of the examinations, and proceeded to con.sider that of Trinity College, Dublin.

Dr. APJOHN referred at some length to the report, andgave explanations as to the remarks of the visitors, which,however, were for the most part inaudible.

Dr. STOKES expressed the pleasure which he had derivedfrom the perusal of the report of the visitors. Referringto the suggestion of the visitors that the time devoted tcthe ’UM70. voce clinical examination was too short, he expressedhis belief that a judgment as to the mens medica of thecandidate could be better arrived at by a written descrip-tion of a case than by answers to any number of oralquestions. Remarking on the proposed exclusion of theprofessorial element from examining boards, he said it

implied a want of confidence in the morality of the ex-aminers.

Dr. STORRAR doubted the expediency of allowing a can-didate to come up at different times for different parts ofhis examination, which rather favoured a superficial know-ledge that could easily be obtained by cramming.

Dr. HALDANE, one of the visitors, said he was greatlypleased with the oral clinical examination, but the time wasno doubt rather too short.

Dr. A. SMiTH thought that the time of examination wassufficient, and said that the best papers were often writtenin the shortest time.

Sir D. CORRIGAN said if the visitations were continuedit would be necessary to instruct the visitors as to the

special matters to be inquired into. On examining thereports he found in them no identity of purpose and nosimilarity of information. He then called attention tothe regulation of Trinity College permitting any personto attend the medical lectures on the payment of a feeof 5s. This was a regulation to which he thought thevisitors ought to have called attention. They ought alsoto have noticed the fact that a student was permitted totake a licence in medicine after four years’ study inmedicine and two years’ study in arts; and that on com-pleting his arts course, and taking a degree of M.B., hewas not subjected to a further examination in medicine.

Mr. QUAIN said he believed that in other universitiesa man might take a medical degree without any degreein arts at all; so that there was no special transgressionon the part of Trinity College.

Dr. STORRAR stated that at the University of Londonthe student was not compelled to take a B.A. degreebefore taking the degree in medicine.

Dr. HUMPHRY said it was the same at Cambridge, butthe candidates had to go through a very similar examina-tion to that required for the arts degree.

Dr. ROLLESTON said that at Oxford the medical candidates

were required to go through the arts curriculum and also totake the degree. He urged the Council to take’ into con-sideration the question of permitting different parts ofexaminations to be taken at different times-a practice thatfavoured the grinding system, and often led the examinersto intensify their questions to such an extent as to makethem beyond the capacity of average students.Mr. MACNAMARA said at Trinity College the examination

of the licentiate was exactly the same as that for thedegree of M.B.

Sir D. CORRIGAN repeated that there was no special ex-amination for a degree of M.B., but that the degree couldbe taken by completing the arts course and paying therequisite fees.

Sir W. GULL said that the examination for the licencewas also an examination for the degree of M.B. The onlydifference between them was that one person had a longeruniversity career than the other.The report of the visitors was then ordered to be sent to

Trinity College for consideration and remarks.The report of the visitors of the examinations of the

Durham University was then considered.Dr. PYLE made some comments on the report, and,

alluding to the remark that the examination was conductedexclusively by the teachers of the University, said that wasan accidental circumstance, and not in accordance with thesystem usually adopted. In the arts course the Universityhad for the last thirty years had one or two examiners fromOxford, so that he could hardly understand how it was thata candidate at the examination (a graduate of the Univer-sity) should show such deficiencies as were alluded to in thecomposition of his thesis.

Dr. WOOD thought it very remarkable that a universityshould confer the degree of M.A. upon a man who wasignorant of composition and spellinsr. Such an occurrencewas neither creditable to the University nor to the pro-

l fession. It was thought that no responsibility in regard to: such matters rested with the medical examiners ; but he

maintained that they ought to reject any candidate whol showed a want of general education. No illiterate mani should ever be allowed to enter the profession. When such

candidates, who had obtained arts degrees, appeared atl professional examinations, he thought that the examinersi should take special notice of the circumstance, ascertainj who were the examiners in general education, and report to

the Council in order that the matter might be remedied.Mr. TURNER called attention to the fact that a candidate

. was allowed to present himself a second time for practical!

chemistry on the ground of his papers in anatomy and. physiology being considered good, and his paper work in

chemistry fair. This candidate, however, was said to have. made a very indifferent dissection. Under the circum-i stances, he thought that the candidate should not have

been allowed a second chance. He also maintained that no: thesis should be accepted unless it was creditable in a

literary as well as in a scientific point of view. He de-murred to a remark made by Sir D. Corrigan, that thewriting of a thesis was a sham. At Edinburgh they re-quired the candidate to certify that his thesis was of hisown composition, relying upon his honour for the correct-ness of the statement. The thesis was required to be agood literary composition, and to contain the results of thewriter’s own inquiries and observations.

Dr. STORRAR said that the University of Durham had themerit of having introduced the system of practical ex-

aminations at a very early period. What they really wantedwas to have outside examiners. It was creditable to theUniversity that it had resisted the temptation of grantingin the north of England the old-fashioned St. Andrewsdegrees.

Dr. HUMPHRY said that importance of dissections wasshown by the circumstance mentioned in the report that thecandidate who had made such a "bash" of his dissectionhad obtained 93 marks out of 100 for his paper on anatomy.The PRESIDENT said that when he visited the University

fifteen years ago a similar circumstance occurred to thatmentioned by the visitors with regard to the examinationin arts, and he then used almost the same words as thevisitors had done-viz., that it was hard upon the profes-sional examiners that they should be placed in the dilemmaof passing persons who could not write or spell English,and who ought never to have had an arts degree. It was