Embed Size (px)
sory of cholera, had continued six, seven,or ten days; but that it lasted from a fewhours to many days, even to eight or ten,or more.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.
To the EditOl’ of THE LANCET.SIR,—As there has been so much said
lately respecting the excellences of the
. London Hospital (vide LANCET, vol. 1, page233), 1 beg your permission to publish afact, which is intended to act as a caution tothe unwary in bartering with lecturers fortheir ware. In the prospectuses issuedfrom the above establishment it was an-
nounced, that Drs. Billing and Davieswould lecture on the practice of medicineevery Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, athalfpast three o’clock. The latter gentleman,however, has thought proper to depart fromthe contract, and has intimated his intention
of lecturing at 8 o’clock in the evening onTuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, a time’excessively inconvenient to some, and
utterly preventing others from attending.But thus it is, Sir, that the poor studentshave, daily, painful experience of the truthof the assertion you have often made, " thatthe interests of the many are constantlysacrificed to the convenience of the few."
January 17th, 1832.
London, Saturday, January 21, 1832.
BROKEN PROMISE.-THE NEW ANATOMY BILL.
PARLIAMENT reassembled on Tuesdayevening last, and Mr. WARBURTON seizedthe first opportunity for proposing that the" Anatomy Bill " should be read a secondtime. After a brief, and, taken altogether,a very uninteresting discussion, the Speakerput the question, when a division havingbeen demanded by the honourable memberfor Preston, it was found that there were
only thirty-three members in the House,and, consequently, the motion fell to the
ground, as the standing orders provide thatforty members must be iu the House torender a division valid.
In the few remarks with which the mo-
tion of the honourable member was submit-
ted to the House, there was a total absenceof statement or argument in proof of the
expediency of passing such a Bill, Mr.WARBURTON having contented himself bymerely referring to the principle which hadbeen acknowledged and acted upon by aformer House of Commons. Without thus
relying upon the ° acknowledgment" of adefunct House of Commons that the wants
of society enjoined upon the Legislaturethe necessity of affording protection to ourschools of anatomy, we apprehend that amore prudent coarse would have been pur-sued, if the honourable Member had ex-
plained the grounds upon which the formerBill had been rejected by a House of Peersnot yet def1mct, and had also explained theessential variations between that lost mea-
sure and the Bill now before the House.
In a somewhat lengthened commentaryon the clauses of this proposed measure, inNo. 435 of THE LANCE’r, we demonstrated,we believe to the satisfaction of every
unprejudiced and intelligent man, that if £
this Bill were passed into a law, it would
prove highly injurious to that science, and.to those interests which, we fully believe,it was Mr. WARBURTON’S earnest desire to
effectually and permanently serve. Our
objections, then, were distinctly stated.
! are those objections shown by the sup-
porters of the Bill to be unreasonable? Are
they proved to have been made in a cap-tious spirit! Not at all. The advocates
of the measure content themselves by re-ferring to the 11 acknowledgment of a prin.ciple " by an authority no longer in ex-istence, and by stating that the schools
want a supply of subjects, and that the
public demand a protection against burkers.It would be far more philosophical, and nota whit less logical, if Mr. WARBURTON
would prove, to the satisfaction of an in-
telligent community, in what manner his
Bill will accomplish either of those objects.