117

ing the " honour, the dignity, and the interests of the profes-sion."

I for one, then, shall not regret to see a protective act of parlia-ment placed in better hands. I give them credit for raising thestandard of medical education, but they would have deservedmuch more had they carried out the provisions of their act. Theyhad the honour to suppress illegal practice, and the time is comewhen they must regret that they did not assume a position whichwould have effectually secured to them the gratitude and supportof the profession. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

C. R. BREE.Stowmarket, Sept. 17, 1844.

C. R. BREE.

MEDICAL SERVICE IN THE COOLIE TRADE.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—It afforded me much pleasure in reading in a latenumber of THE LANCET, " The Delights of serving as Surgeon inMerchant Vessels." I was lately engaged in that service, andmy object in troubling you with these lines, is to assure you thatevery word stated in the account is perfectly correct, and, at thesame time, to warn the unwary, lest they be taken in by one ofthose plausible advertisements described.On your arrival in Calcutta, the ship may be detained a month

or more, (we were detained four,) and you are expected to defrayall your expenses if you live on shore, which a gentleman mustdo; and, in case of sickness, you are sent to the hospital, forwhich you will be charged. And this is called by certain brokersand captains an eligible opportunity for a surgeon to visit theIndies.

In the Coolie trade, alias the slave trade, (for the poor wretchesare, to all intents and purposes, slaves,) it is really dreadful to beon board with such a cargo of filth and disease.The women are generally suffering from venereal when they

are inveigled on board, with the assurance that they are going ashort journey to a beautiful climate, where they will be well paid.When they arrive, they find, to their sorrow and grief, that theyare indifferently paid, and cannot return to their country under aperiod of five years. I hope, sir, you will find a place in yourinvaluable journal for these few lines, as I have suffered myself,and am anxious that no member of the profession should be placedin a like position. By its insertion, it may be the means of de-terring some young men from embarking in such an unprofitableand dangerous trip.

I am, sir, yours most obediently,ALSO ONE WHO SERVED IN THE

COOLIE TRADE IN 1843.

THE QUACKS’ BILL IN STAFFORDSHIRE.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Being animated by the soul-stirring speeches which havelately appeared in your invaluable columns, I wish to ask mymedical brethren in Staffordshire why they linger in puttingtheir shoulders to the wheel to annihilate Sir James Graham’s"monster destruction bill ?" Is it because they have been so latelybespattered by the blushing honours of our liberal college, by thetitle of F.R.C.S.E., which, although it is not in accordance withthe strict rules of stenography, looks very much like farce; or is itbecause there are no "bone-setters," "worm-doctors," "midwives’midwifery," and mosquitoes of the like sort to contend with? I dohope the "subordinates" will call a meeting of the medical pM-fession, to be held at Stafford, for. Staffordshire to oppose the bill,and co-operate with their professional brethren in the vineyard ofmedical reform. I am, sir, yours, &c.

AN OLD SUBSCRIBER, STAFFORDSHIRE.October 9th, 1844.

DR. A. GUY’S LATE WORK ON MEDICAL JURIS-PRUDENCE.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—I request the favour of a place in your columns for thefollowing statement in reference to my recently published work onForensic Medicine.Having lately been made aware of an inadvertence, by which

several passages, originally taken, with little or no alteration, fromMr. Taylor’s unfinished ’° Elements of Medical Jurisprudence,"have found their way, unacknowledged, into the second part ofmy work on Forensic Medicine, I am anxious thus publicly toexpress my regret, and to explain the circumstances which led tothe omission.

In preparing my first course of lectures, I made extensive useof Mr. Taylor’s work, and embodied several passages withouttaking the precaution of noting the source from which they hadbeen derived. In subsequent courses, though most of the lectures

were entirely remodelled, or greatly modified, these underwent

comparatively little change. While preparing my work for thepress, such parts of the lectures as suited the plan of it were in-

troduced, and thus the borrowed passages found their way intoprint.

Not long since, through the kindness of a friend, to whom thepassages in question had been pointed out, I was informed of theerror which I had committed, and gave in reply the explanationnow offered; but finding that the subject has since become one ofmore than private remark, I have thought it right to offer thispublic explanation, and to express my regret at the occurrence.should be more deeply concerned at what has taken place if it

could, by any possibility, injure any one but myself. Thefrequent reference made to Mr. Taylor’s labours in several partsof my work, as well as in that which contains the passages inquestion, will shew how far I was from wishing to deprive of thecredit due to him one to whom I am under personal obligationsfor his friendly assistance, rendered to me at my first entranceon my duties at the King’s College.

I have the honour to be, sir,Your obedient, humble servant,

WILLIAM A. GUY.15, Bloomsbury-square, Oct. 14, 1844.

WILLIAM A. GUY.

DR. COSTELLO’S ASSUMED CONNEXION WITH THEROYAL FREE HOSPITAL, ETC.

NOTE FROM M R. J. GAY.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Dr. Costello, " Principal of Wyke House Asylum," and" long the friend and pupil of the illustrious Gall," has, in arecent number of a cotemporary journal, taken the liberty ofusing my name without my leave, and of announcing me asone of his colleagues. Not being ambitious of that honour, may Ibe allowed, through the medium of your journal, to state that Iam not a colleague of, nor in any way whatever connected with,that gentleman.As Dr. C. has persisted in assuming an official connexion with

the Royal Free Hospital, in defiance of its contradiction bymyself and colleague, which you did us the favour to publish ina late Number of THE LANCET, I will, by your permission, asthis opportunity occurs, shew, not only that Dr. C. is not, butthat, under existing circumstances, he cannot, become one ofthe medical officers of that institution.Amongst the rules of the charity are the following :-Rule 50.—" That the physicians of the hospital shall be fellows

or licentiates of the Royal College of Physicians in London."Rule 51.—" That the surgeons of the hospital shall be members

of the Royal College of Surgeons in London."I cannot find the name " W. B. Costello" either in the lists of

fellows or licentiates of the Royal College of Physicians inLondon, or in that of the members of the Royal College ofSurgeons. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

JOHN GAY, F.R.C.S.E.,Surgeon to the Royal Free Hospital, &c.

12, Pavement, Oct. 13, 1844.

JOHN GAY, F.R.C.S.E.,Surgeon to the Royal Free Hospital, &c.

NOTE FROM MR. W. ECCLES.

To the Editor 6/THE LANCET.

SIR, - As Dr. Costello has had the bad taste, in a paperpublished in the " Medical Times" of last Saturday, again toassume the title of Surgeon Lithotritist to the Royal Free Hos-pital," notwithstanding the disclaimer of Mr. Jones, Mr. Gay,and myself, in your journal of the 21st of September, I havethought it right to address the following note to the editor ofanother periodical. With a view, however, to ensure its generalcirculation amongst the profession, may I take the liberty of re-questing the favour of its insertion in the columns of THELANCET? I have the honour to be, sir,

Your most obedient servant,WILLIAM ECCLES.

Old Broad-street, Oct. 16, 1844.WILLIAM ECCLES.

(COPY.)" SIR,—By your publishing in your last number a reiteration,

from Dr. W. B. Costello, of his connexion with the Royal FreeHospital, I presume that you have not read a joint note from Mr.Greville Jones, Mr. Gay, and myself, in TiaE LANCET of the 21stult., page 790, in which we, as surgeons of that hospital, deniedthe fact of Dr. Costello holding the appointment he professes tohave been elected to in that institution.

" I beg leave now, on my own part, to repeat that there is nosuch officer as that of ’ Surgeon Lithotritist to the Royal FreeHospital;’ hence the designation of myself and some others as his