- Email: [email protected]
MEMORIAL OF THE CHELTENHAM MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
REFORM OF THE ROYAL MEDICAL AND CHIRURGICAL SOCIETY.
Council, although some had been twenty, or ever twenty-five years in the Society. So long as this systen been
on
any
wonder that dissatisfaction exists amon who, although of some standing in the Society, anc who have shown an interest in its proceedings by writing papers, and striving to promote its objects, are nevertheless put aside to make room for more favoured individuals. As ii in punishment for the selfishness of the principle, the breeding in-and-in system effectually blights its own offspring Under its pernicious influence all living organizations de. teriorate. The physical and mental faculties of man degene. rate, and his puny form is accompanied by imbecility of pur pose; as was well exemplified in the old noblesse of France, and the grandees of Spain. By the same blighting influence, societies are likewise deprived of all viril power, and fade
prevails,
it is
no
those
into the
ineffectuality of dotage.
II. Monopoly of offices. The Committee of Referees are by the present arrangement directly named by the Council, and several Fellows are at the same time members of council and of the committee of referees; ’thus having a double power, first of giving an opinion on the merits of a paper, and secondly, of voting as well as of speaking for or against its publication, when the referees’ reports come before the Council. In this imperfect arrangement there is something so contrary to common sense, that we doubt not of measures being immediately taken for its modifi-
cation. III. Undue preponderance of hospital men. We will first give Dr. WEBSTi:R’s statement at the late anniversary meeting, and then make our own reflections. "Looking at the proposed house-list for election, (says Dr.
Webster,) among the twenty-one names it contains, fourteen, or two-thirds, are connected with hospitals, whilst two hospitals alone actually monopolize six of these gentlemen, being the schools to which the two secretaries are attached, there being three members from each school. Nine of the new Council had been previously in office, five were junior Fellows elected in 1840, or more recently, and nine had never contri-
buted any paper to the Transactions. In the same way, out of the twenty-four members of the Committee of Referees, eighteen were hospital officers, nine of whom were attached to two schools, one of which happened to be that of the medical secretary, four belonged to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and five to Ring’s College." Such are Dr. WEBSTER’S uncontradicted assertions, and a glance at the composition of the, councils for the last ten years bears out his statement; the average number of hospital officers in the Council during that period being eleven. Now we find that out of 300 resident Fellows composing the Society, there are only fifty-five, or at most sixty, holding hospital appointments, being one-fifth of the whole number; consequently, on principles of statistical impartiality, the proportion of hospital officers to the other members should be about five per cent. instead of one-half, as at present. Here, however, we dissent from Dr. WEBSTER; for we think it more necessary to ensure the active co-operation of the greatest amount of talent, than to satisfy the self-importance of the greatest number of Fellows. Hospital men are, o° ought to be, Hospital men,because their talent stands recognised by all. They are the pioneers of the profession; having a wider field of action, they are better able to form comprehensive views, to test the value of new discoveries, and to judge of the merit of the original facts or deductions submitted by individual Fellows to the approbation of the Society. That hospital men should therefore fill about one-half of the offices
461
of the Society seems to us most desirable; but not so that St. Bartholomew’s should have three representatives in the Council, and four on the Committee of Referees ; or that King’s College should send five members to the Committee of Referees, and St. Thomas’s depute four of its officials to the Council, whilst the London and Charing-cross Hospitals, the Royal Free Hospital, St. Luke’s, and others, are not in any way represented ! We have thus detailed the modifications suggested as necessary to be made in the by-laws of the Society, and
opinion on the degree of their importance. To sum few words what we have submitted to the notice of the Fellows. We suggest that the following additional bylaws might be made the objects of public discussion, the more so as several of them have (after much agitation) been adopted by the Royal Society, a learned corporation, often looked up to as a model by the Royal Medico-Chirurgical given
our
up in
a
Society. "
That no Fellow should, in future, be at the same time a member of the Council and of the Committee of Referees"-a regulation lately adopted at the Royal Society, after much agitation, it is true. " That no medical school should have more than two of its members in the Council, or in the Committee of Referees." " To be a member of Council, a Fellow must have at least five years’ standing in the Society." To be a Referee a Fellow must have previously held some office in the Society, and have contributed to the Transactions. That the Referees should be proposed by the Councils and be submitted to the Society for their approval. That six of the twenty-four Referees should go out of office every year, and that they should not be re-elected until two years after their going out." " That in future each paper should be sent in with a motto, as with prize essays, and then immediately referred by the secretary to one of the Referees, to decide on its value for reading alone, or for both reading and publication." The modifications we have now sketched would, we have no doubt, give general. satisfaction, and restore harmony to the Society. The Fellows should never forget that the chartered institution to which they belong, originated in the unhappy dissensions of another society; and when attending the adjourned meeting on May lst, at four o’clock, they should bear in mind that they are bound by their motto, not merely to live on in passive submission to undenied grievances, but by insisting on their being redressed, to show themselves worthy of the life they live. " Non est vivere sed valere, vita."
MEMORIAL OF THE CHELTENHAM MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. To the Right Iloaa. Sir George Grey, Bart., G.C.B., M.P., &c., Ile2- Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the -ffo2ne
Depart2)?.ent. WE, the undersigned medital practitioners, resident
in Chelattention drawn to certain " Outlines of a Bill for Regulating the Profession of Physic and Surgery," which, it is stated, have been submitted to you by a conference of delegates from the principal medical corporations of London. We have also seen published in the medical journals a Memorial* relating to this subject, which has been forwarded to you by our professional brethren of Manchester, and
tenham, have
*
had
The Memorial
our
was
published in THE
LANCET of March 31st.
462 which expresses, in
detail, various objections
to the
proposed
measure.
Not wishing to weary you with a communication of unnecessary length, and believing that nothing we can say will better deserve your full consideration than the document referred to, we desire to record our entire concurrence in, and to adopt as our own, the sentiments so well put forth in the Manchester Memorial, and earnestly beg you to accord to the
- arguments therein stated that deep attention which their importance, and the temperate tone in which they are pro-
pounded, so justly merits. We would only suggest, in addition, that while the health of the public imperatively requires that all persons permitted
practise the united profession of medicine and surgery should be qualified in both branches of their art, the same consideration of public welfare, no less than the respectability of the profession, demands that any legislation upon this subject should have a tendency to discourage, for the future, the connexion generally subsisting between the functions of the medical adviser and the trade of pharmacy,-so far, at least, as long-established prejudices will allow, and without interference with the rights of existing practitioners. Holding this view, we need hardly say how entirely we differ from those who would create, in addition to our already too numerous colleges, a new institution, for the purpose, as it appears to us, of perpetuating a combination, to which we would gladly do all in our power to put an end. We submit this suggestion, with all deference, to your consideration, in the full conviction that we are thereby consulting the true interests, both of the profession and the public; .and will merely, in conclusion, repeat, most respectfully, our earnest hope that you will not commit yourself to the measures proposed by the conference of delegates, but allow to the well-considered objections of the Manchester memorialists that weight to which we believe them to be entitled. to
J.
BARON, M.D.,
F.R.S.
J. ALLARDYCE, M.D. W. R. BERNARD, M.D. ÆNEAS CANNON, M.D. W. CONOLLY, M.D. W. P. BROOKES, M.D. THOMAS WRIGHT, M.D. G. BAGNALL, M.D. E. ACWORTH, M.D. A. W. GABB. SAMUEL DAVIES, M.D. C. F. ELCUM. WALTER CARY. FREDERICK HYETT. COURTLAND S. SHAW. W. T. SHELDON. C. T. COOKE. CHARLES FOWLER. G. FORD COPELAND. CLEMENT J. HAWKINS. AUGUSTUS EVES.
WILLIAM BELL.
CHARLES PRENTICE. S. E. COMYN, M.D. C. B. KER, M.D. T. J. COTTLE. ROBERT NEWMAN. WILLIAM DALTON. W. H. HOOPER, M.D. JAMES WYATT. JAMES FORTNOM. E. FRICKER. CHARLES EDWARDS. DAVID HARTLEY. GEORGE ARNOTT. T. R. COLLEDGE, M.D. JOHN ORRELL. J. S. WILLIS. C. ROBINSON, M.D. W. GIBNEY, M.D. J. H. PEEBLES, M.D.
MEMORIAL OF THE WOLVERHAMPTON MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. AT a meeting of the medical practitioners residing in Wolverhampton and its vicinity, (convened by public advertisement,) held April 18th, 1849, at the South Staffordshire General Hos-
pital, Dr. TOPHAM in the chair, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted :Proposed by Mr. John FOWKE, and seconded by Mr. ED-
WARDES,—" That this meeting considers that a measure recently proposed to be brought before the legislature, entitled
Bill for regulating the Profession of Physic and highly objectionable; as tending to degrade the general practitioners of medicine and surgery in this kingdom, - and to prove injurious to the best interests of the public." Proposed by Mr. DEHANE, and seconded by Mr. CARTWRIGHT-"That a memorial bd presented to her Majesty’s Secretary for the Home Department, together with a petition to the House of Commons, representing the views of the practitioners of medicine and surgery in Wolverhampton and its vicinity; in opposition to the creation of a College of General Practitioners; and expressing their conviction that the establishment of such additional examining board is totally unnecessary, as the Colleges of Physicians and Sur. geons, if properly modified, contain all the elements requisite for examining and licensing in every branch of the pro. * Outline of Surgery,’ is
fession."
a
Proposed by
Mr.
IlASLEuuRs’r, and seconded by Mr. COLE-
MAN,-" That the memorial and petition which have been read by Dr. DELL, be adopted, and that the memorial be transmitted to her
Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department. That Mr. TnoRNL, one of the members for the Borough of wolverhampton, be requested to present the petition to the House of Commons; and that Mr. Villiers, together
with the members for the southern division of the county of Stafford, be requested to support the prayer of the petition :’ Proposed by Mr. DUNN, and seconded by Mr. GATIS,—." That the resolutions of this meeting be advertised in THE LANCET, .A/e(Hcu/ (7oseMe, Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal, and in the Staffordshire Adverleser, and Wolverhampton Chronicle. Proposed by Mr. CHARLES UNDERIIILL, and seconded by Mr. WRIGHT,—" That Dr. Topham, Mr. Edwardes, Dr. Bell, Mr. Gatis, and Mr. Wright, be appointed a committee to carry these resolutions into effect." Proposed by Mr. EDWARDES, and seconded by Mr. COOPER; . " That the thanks of this meeting be given to Dr. Topham, for his able and efficient services in thn chair"
JOHN TOPHAM, Chairman. Hospital, April, 1849. *Ina note accompanying the above report, our correspondent informs us-" The meeting (which was convened by public advertisement) were unanimous in adopting all the proposed resolutions. There was not one dissentient voice to the expression of opposition to the establishment of a third college ; nor was a single member of the Institute present; such an animal not appearing to exist in this locality. South Staffordshire General
MEMORIAL TO SIR GEORGE GREY, BART., BY GRADUATES IN MEDICINE PRACTISING AT MANCHESTER. To the Editor of THE LANCET. SIR,—Will you allow me to request the insertion of the accompanying Memorial to Sir George Grey, in the columns of THE LANCET, at your earliest convenience, as we in Manchester are in hopes that a similar course may be adopted in other
large towns. We feel grateful to you for your unceasing advocacy of our rights, and the efforts you have made to rouse the graduates engaged in general practice to a sense of the condition in which this monstrous Bill will place them. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. AIKENHEAD, M.D. Oxford-road, Manchester, April, 1849. SIR,—A meeting of members of the profession who hold the degree of M.D., and are engaged in general practice, took place on Saturday, the 14th instant, at the St. James’s Coffee House, in this city, to consider the provisions of the Medical
Reform Dill about to be laid before Parliament, and the proposed new Charter to the London College of Physicians. Dr. J. G. HARRISON was voted to the chair; and, after the objects of the meeting had been fully explained, it was pro. posed by Dr. AlKENHEAD, seconded by Dr. SINCLAIR, and carried unanimously,-" That the following Memorial be presented to Sir George Grey, Bart., her Majesty’s Secretary of for the Home Department:’To the Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart. &c., he2-.Jlajestis Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Memorial of the undersigned Medical Practitioners, resident in Manchester and the vicinity thereof,
State
respectfully showeth,That your memorialists, concurring in the general tenour of the Address recently presented to you by the medical practitioners of this city, would now draw your attention to some of the details of the proposed measure of Medical Reform, which they conceive will operate injuriously to their interests. That your memorialists-having, in addition to their surgical diploma, obtained the degree of doctor of medicine from universities legally empowered to confer the same-have been engaged for many years as general practitioners of medicine, and have uninterruptedly used their academic title, without violating any known law or custom. That your memorialists, having seen the " Outlines of a Bill for regulating the Profession of Physic and Surgery," which, it is stated, has been submitted to you by " a conference of delegates from the principal medical corporations in London, and the National Institute, as likely to be acceptable to the profession at large," find that, by the provisions of that Bill, every medical practitioner who has obtained the degree of doctor of medicine is precluded from, and is rendered liable
Council, although some had been twenty, or ever twenty-five years in the Society. So long as this systen been
on
any
wonder that dissatisfaction exists amon who, although of some standing in the Society, anc who have shown an interest in its proceedings by writing papers, and striving to promote its objects, are nevertheless put aside to make room for more favoured individuals. As ii in punishment for the selfishness of the principle, the breeding in-and-in system effectually blights its own offspring Under its pernicious influence all living organizations de. teriorate. The physical and mental faculties of man degene. rate, and his puny form is accompanied by imbecility of pur pose; as was well exemplified in the old noblesse of France, and the grandees of Spain. By the same blighting influence, societies are likewise deprived of all viril power, and fade
prevails,
it is
no
those
into the
ineffectuality of dotage.
II. Monopoly of offices. The Committee of Referees are by the present arrangement directly named by the Council, and several Fellows are at the same time members of council and of the committee of referees; ’thus having a double power, first of giving an opinion on the merits of a paper, and secondly, of voting as well as of speaking for or against its publication, when the referees’ reports come before the Council. In this imperfect arrangement there is something so contrary to common sense, that we doubt not of measures being immediately taken for its modifi-
cation. III. Undue preponderance of hospital men. We will first give Dr. WEBSTi:R’s statement at the late anniversary meeting, and then make our own reflections. "Looking at the proposed house-list for election, (says Dr.
Webster,) among the twenty-one names it contains, fourteen, or two-thirds, are connected with hospitals, whilst two hospitals alone actually monopolize six of these gentlemen, being the schools to which the two secretaries are attached, there being three members from each school. Nine of the new Council had been previously in office, five were junior Fellows elected in 1840, or more recently, and nine had never contri-
buted any paper to the Transactions. In the same way, out of the twenty-four members of the Committee of Referees, eighteen were hospital officers, nine of whom were attached to two schools, one of which happened to be that of the medical secretary, four belonged to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and five to Ring’s College." Such are Dr. WEBSTER’S uncontradicted assertions, and a glance at the composition of the, councils for the last ten years bears out his statement; the average number of hospital officers in the Council during that period being eleven. Now we find that out of 300 resident Fellows composing the Society, there are only fifty-five, or at most sixty, holding hospital appointments, being one-fifth of the whole number; consequently, on principles of statistical impartiality, the proportion of hospital officers to the other members should be about five per cent. instead of one-half, as at present. Here, however, we dissent from Dr. WEBSTER; for we think it more necessary to ensure the active co-operation of the greatest amount of talent, than to satisfy the self-importance of the greatest number of Fellows. Hospital men are, o° ought to be, Hospital men,because their talent stands recognised by all. They are the pioneers of the profession; having a wider field of action, they are better able to form comprehensive views, to test the value of new discoveries, and to judge of the merit of the original facts or deductions submitted by individual Fellows to the approbation of the Society. That hospital men should therefore fill about one-half of the offices
461
of the Society seems to us most desirable; but not so that St. Bartholomew’s should have three representatives in the Council, and four on the Committee of Referees ; or that King’s College should send five members to the Committee of Referees, and St. Thomas’s depute four of its officials to the Council, whilst the London and Charing-cross Hospitals, the Royal Free Hospital, St. Luke’s, and others, are not in any way represented ! We have thus detailed the modifications suggested as necessary to be made in the by-laws of the Society, and
opinion on the degree of their importance. To sum few words what we have submitted to the notice of the Fellows. We suggest that the following additional bylaws might be made the objects of public discussion, the more so as several of them have (after much agitation) been adopted by the Royal Society, a learned corporation, often looked up to as a model by the Royal Medico-Chirurgical given
our
up in
a
Society. "
That no Fellow should, in future, be at the same time a member of the Council and of the Committee of Referees"-a regulation lately adopted at the Royal Society, after much agitation, it is true. " That no medical school should have more than two of its members in the Council, or in the Committee of Referees." " To be a member of Council, a Fellow must have at least five years’ standing in the Society." To be a Referee a Fellow must have previously held some office in the Society, and have contributed to the Transactions. That the Referees should be proposed by the Councils and be submitted to the Society for their approval. That six of the twenty-four Referees should go out of office every year, and that they should not be re-elected until two years after their going out." " That in future each paper should be sent in with a motto, as with prize essays, and then immediately referred by the secretary to one of the Referees, to decide on its value for reading alone, or for both reading and publication." The modifications we have now sketched would, we have no doubt, give general. satisfaction, and restore harmony to the Society. The Fellows should never forget that the chartered institution to which they belong, originated in the unhappy dissensions of another society; and when attending the adjourned meeting on May lst, at four o’clock, they should bear in mind that they are bound by their motto, not merely to live on in passive submission to undenied grievances, but by insisting on their being redressed, to show themselves worthy of the life they live. " Non est vivere sed valere, vita."
MEMORIAL OF THE CHELTENHAM MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. To the Right Iloaa. Sir George Grey, Bart., G.C.B., M.P., &c., Ile2- Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the -ffo2ne
Depart2)?.ent. WE, the undersigned medital practitioners, resident
in Chelattention drawn to certain " Outlines of a Bill for Regulating the Profession of Physic and Surgery," which, it is stated, have been submitted to you by a conference of delegates from the principal medical corporations of London. We have also seen published in the medical journals a Memorial* relating to this subject, which has been forwarded to you by our professional brethren of Manchester, and
tenham, have
*
had
The Memorial
our
was
published in THE
LANCET of March 31st.
462 which expresses, in
detail, various objections
to the
proposed
measure.
Not wishing to weary you with a communication of unnecessary length, and believing that nothing we can say will better deserve your full consideration than the document referred to, we desire to record our entire concurrence in, and to adopt as our own, the sentiments so well put forth in the Manchester Memorial, and earnestly beg you to accord to the
- arguments therein stated that deep attention which their importance, and the temperate tone in which they are pro-
pounded, so justly merits. We would only suggest, in addition, that while the health of the public imperatively requires that all persons permitted
practise the united profession of medicine and surgery should be qualified in both branches of their art, the same consideration of public welfare, no less than the respectability of the profession, demands that any legislation upon this subject should have a tendency to discourage, for the future, the connexion generally subsisting between the functions of the medical adviser and the trade of pharmacy,-so far, at least, as long-established prejudices will allow, and without interference with the rights of existing practitioners. Holding this view, we need hardly say how entirely we differ from those who would create, in addition to our already too numerous colleges, a new institution, for the purpose, as it appears to us, of perpetuating a combination, to which we would gladly do all in our power to put an end. We submit this suggestion, with all deference, to your consideration, in the full conviction that we are thereby consulting the true interests, both of the profession and the public; .and will merely, in conclusion, repeat, most respectfully, our earnest hope that you will not commit yourself to the measures proposed by the conference of delegates, but allow to the well-considered objections of the Manchester memorialists that weight to which we believe them to be entitled. to
J.
BARON, M.D.,
F.R.S.
J. ALLARDYCE, M.D. W. R. BERNARD, M.D. ÆNEAS CANNON, M.D. W. CONOLLY, M.D. W. P. BROOKES, M.D. THOMAS WRIGHT, M.D. G. BAGNALL, M.D. E. ACWORTH, M.D. A. W. GABB. SAMUEL DAVIES, M.D. C. F. ELCUM. WALTER CARY. FREDERICK HYETT. COURTLAND S. SHAW. W. T. SHELDON. C. T. COOKE. CHARLES FOWLER. G. FORD COPELAND. CLEMENT J. HAWKINS. AUGUSTUS EVES.
WILLIAM BELL.
CHARLES PRENTICE. S. E. COMYN, M.D. C. B. KER, M.D. T. J. COTTLE. ROBERT NEWMAN. WILLIAM DALTON. W. H. HOOPER, M.D. JAMES WYATT. JAMES FORTNOM. E. FRICKER. CHARLES EDWARDS. DAVID HARTLEY. GEORGE ARNOTT. T. R. COLLEDGE, M.D. JOHN ORRELL. J. S. WILLIS. C. ROBINSON, M.D. W. GIBNEY, M.D. J. H. PEEBLES, M.D.
MEMORIAL OF THE WOLVERHAMPTON MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. AT a meeting of the medical practitioners residing in Wolverhampton and its vicinity, (convened by public advertisement,) held April 18th, 1849, at the South Staffordshire General Hos-
pital, Dr. TOPHAM in the chair, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted :Proposed by Mr. John FOWKE, and seconded by Mr. ED-
WARDES,—" That this meeting considers that a measure recently proposed to be brought before the legislature, entitled
Bill for regulating the Profession of Physic and highly objectionable; as tending to degrade the general practitioners of medicine and surgery in this kingdom, - and to prove injurious to the best interests of the public." Proposed by Mr. DEHANE, and seconded by Mr. CARTWRIGHT-"That a memorial bd presented to her Majesty’s Secretary for the Home Department, together with a petition to the House of Commons, representing the views of the practitioners of medicine and surgery in Wolverhampton and its vicinity; in opposition to the creation of a College of General Practitioners; and expressing their conviction that the establishment of such additional examining board is totally unnecessary, as the Colleges of Physicians and Sur. geons, if properly modified, contain all the elements requisite for examining and licensing in every branch of the pro. * Outline of Surgery,’ is
fession."
a
Proposed by
Mr.
IlASLEuuRs’r, and seconded by Mr. COLE-
MAN,-" That the memorial and petition which have been read by Dr. DELL, be adopted, and that the memorial be transmitted to her
Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department. That Mr. TnoRNL, one of the members for the Borough of wolverhampton, be requested to present the petition to the House of Commons; and that Mr. Villiers, together
with the members for the southern division of the county of Stafford, be requested to support the prayer of the petition :’ Proposed by Mr. DUNN, and seconded by Mr. GATIS,—." That the resolutions of this meeting be advertised in THE LANCET, .A/e(Hcu/ (7oseMe, Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal, and in the Staffordshire Adverleser, and Wolverhampton Chronicle. Proposed by Mr. CHARLES UNDERIIILL, and seconded by Mr. WRIGHT,—" That Dr. Topham, Mr. Edwardes, Dr. Bell, Mr. Gatis, and Mr. Wright, be appointed a committee to carry these resolutions into effect." Proposed by Mr. EDWARDES, and seconded by Mr. COOPER; . " That the thanks of this meeting be given to Dr. Topham, for his able and efficient services in thn chair"
JOHN TOPHAM, Chairman. Hospital, April, 1849. *Ina note accompanying the above report, our correspondent informs us-" The meeting (which was convened by public advertisement) were unanimous in adopting all the proposed resolutions. There was not one dissentient voice to the expression of opposition to the establishment of a third college ; nor was a single member of the Institute present; such an animal not appearing to exist in this locality. South Staffordshire General
MEMORIAL TO SIR GEORGE GREY, BART., BY GRADUATES IN MEDICINE PRACTISING AT MANCHESTER. To the Editor of THE LANCET. SIR,—Will you allow me to request the insertion of the accompanying Memorial to Sir George Grey, in the columns of THE LANCET, at your earliest convenience, as we in Manchester are in hopes that a similar course may be adopted in other
large towns. We feel grateful to you for your unceasing advocacy of our rights, and the efforts you have made to rouse the graduates engaged in general practice to a sense of the condition in which this monstrous Bill will place them. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. AIKENHEAD, M.D. Oxford-road, Manchester, April, 1849. SIR,—A meeting of members of the profession who hold the degree of M.D., and are engaged in general practice, took place on Saturday, the 14th instant, at the St. James’s Coffee House, in this city, to consider the provisions of the Medical
Reform Dill about to be laid before Parliament, and the proposed new Charter to the London College of Physicians. Dr. J. G. HARRISON was voted to the chair; and, after the objects of the meeting had been fully explained, it was pro. posed by Dr. AlKENHEAD, seconded by Dr. SINCLAIR, and carried unanimously,-" That the following Memorial be presented to Sir George Grey, Bart., her Majesty’s Secretary of for the Home Department:’To the Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart. &c., he2-.Jlajestis Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Memorial of the undersigned Medical Practitioners, resident in Manchester and the vicinity thereof,
State
respectfully showeth,That your memorialists, concurring in the general tenour of the Address recently presented to you by the medical practitioners of this city, would now draw your attention to some of the details of the proposed measure of Medical Reform, which they conceive will operate injuriously to their interests. That your memorialists-having, in addition to their surgical diploma, obtained the degree of doctor of medicine from universities legally empowered to confer the same-have been engaged for many years as general practitioners of medicine, and have uninterruptedly used their academic title, without violating any known law or custom. That your memorialists, having seen the " Outlines of a Bill for regulating the Profession of Physic and Surgery," which, it is stated, has been submitted to you by " a conference of delegates from the principal medical corporations in London, and the National Institute, as likely to be acceptable to the profession at large," find that, by the provisions of that Bill, every medical practitioner who has obtained the degree of doctor of medicine is precluded from, and is rendered liable