petition to sir james graham from the medical practitioners of colchester

2
365 Proposed by Mr. WALLACE, of Carshalton, and seconded by Mr. SHELLEY, of Epsom, and resolved unanimously,- That having considered the " Bill for regulating the profes- sion of Physic and Surgery" recently presented to the House of Commons, this meeting consider the Bill to be so objectionable in many of its provisions that it ought on no account to pass into a law in its present state." Proposed by Mr. WARD, of Epsom, seconded by Mr. CURTIS, of Dorking, and resolved unanimously. That this meeting approve of a Council of Health, if properly constituted, but are of opinion that the Council, as proposed by the Bill, would neither possess nor deserve the confidence of the profession. Being composed exclusively of physicians and surgeons, it would not represent the interests, nor express the wishes, of the great body of the medical practitioners throughout the United Kingdom." Proposed by Mr. CHALDECOTT, of Dorking, seconded by Mr. CHANDLER, of Godalming, and resolved unanimously,- That the proposed removal of the superintendence of the education of general practitioners or licentiates from a body emanating from their own class to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, is calculated to excite great alarm in the minds of general practitioners, as they cannot but apprehend, as the result of such arrangement, the introduction into the profession of a body of licentiates possessing an inferior degree of attainment, and consequent depreciation of their class in public estimation." Proposed by Mr. NAPPER, of Guildford, seconded by Mr. HOWELL, of Wandsworth, and resolved unanimously,- That this meeting, entertaining a high sense of respect and honour for the Society of Apothecaries, desire to express senti- ments of entire approbation of their spirited and disinterested conduct at this momentous period, and of gratitude for the earnest wish of the Society to render assistance in promoting the wishes and objects of their professional brethren." Proposed by Mr. HOWELL, of Wandsworth, seconded by Mr. JONES, of Epsom, and resolved unanimously,- « That the cordiality and good feeling which ought to exist between the different classes of practitioners in medicine, and which are essential to their usefulness to society, cannot be main- tained, unless those classes, which have been created by the public wants, are independent of each other in their educational and in- ternal arrangements." Proposed by Mr. HARCOURT, of Chertsey, seconded by Mr. BOULGER, of Bletchingley, and resolved unanimously,- " That this meeting approve of those parts of the Bill which propose to establish a uniform standard of education and qualifi- cation, and the right to practise, by all qualified persons, without respect to local privileges, provided such uniformity is not at- tended by a depreciation of the standard of knowledge." Proposed by Mr. STEDMAN, of Guildford, seconded by Mr. COLE, of Chertsey, and resolved unanimously,- " That it is essential to the public health that the visiting the sick and prescribing for them at their own homes, with the view to pecuniary payment and profit, by uneducated and unlicensed persons, be liable to summary and inexpensive conviction and punishment, on proof before the local magistracy." Proposed by Mr. PETER MARTIN, of Reigate, seconded by KNOWLES, of Farnham, and resolved unanimously,- " That this meeting earnestly desire that the general practi- tioners of the United Kingdom should be incorporated in a col- legiate form, by royal charter, confirmed by act of parliament, so that they may be authorized to direct the education, examination, -and admission, of candidates for general practice, and thereby be rendered eligible for the exercise of the franchise in the election of members of the Council cr governing body, or as candidates for seats in that Council; and that this measure be secured to them previously to the further progress of the ‘ Bill for regulating the profession of Physic and Surgery’ through the House of Commons." Proposed by Mr. NASH, of Leatherhead, seconded by Mr. HAMPTON, of Reigate, and resolved unanimously,- " That in conformity to the previous resolutions, the following petition be adopted and presented to the House of Commons ; that one of the county members be respectfully requested to present the same; that the other members of this county, and the borough towns in this county, be requested to support and to give e all the effect they can to the prayer of the petition." To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Practitioners of Medicine, Surgery, and Midwifery, or, as they are usually denominated, " General Practitioners of Medicine," resid- ing in the rural districts of the county of Surrey, SHEWETH,—That your petitioners have duly considered the " Bill for regulating the profession of Physic and Surgery" lately, presented to your honourable house, and are humbly of opinion, that were the said Bill to be carried into a law, it would alto- gether fail in accomplishing the beneficent intentions of the legis- lature. That your petitioners view with great alarm the proposed constitution of the " Council of Health," as not being likely to possess the confidence of the profession generally. They cannot refrain from expressing their surprise and regret that no general practitioner is, by this Bill, proposed to be appointed on the Council of Health, thereby witholding from that most important and numerous body a voice in the Council, whence it is proposed should emanate all the laws and regulations which will have so important, so vital an effect, on the future condition of the great body of the medical practitioners throughout the United King- dom. Your petitioners fear, also, the consequences of the absolute and despotic powers proposed to be conferred on the Council of Health, from whose decisions, whatever they may be, there is no appeal. That in the partial repeal of the Apothecaries’ Act of 1815, your petitioners feel assured that the power left to the Society of Apothecaries to proceed against unlicensed practi- tioners would be of no avail, on account of the expensive and cumbrous nature of the legal proceedings, and the want of funds to meet the expense. That notwithstanding the comprehensive and apparently satis- factory nature of the protection sought by this Bill to be afforded to the public and the profession, evasion, by unqualified and un- educated pretenders, would not be difficult. And your petitioners beg to add that there are other points of important objection in the proposed Bill, but which they refrain from particularizing on the present occasion. That your petitioners wish it always to be borne in mind, in a wise medical legislation, that the welfare of the whole people, and the real interests, usefulness, and respectability of those who are the medical advisers, in ordinary, of the great majority of the public, are identical. That in the humble opinion of your petitioners, this Bill, in its general tendency, instead of improving and elevating, will con- tribute to the deterioration and degradation of the general practi- tioner. Moreover, the general practitioners are not only the medical at- tendants in ordinary of most of the higher and middle classes of society, and exclusively of the labouring classes, but also a large majority of the medical appointments to public offices in the provinces, and a large proportion of those in the metropolis, are held by them. The entire medical staff of surgeons of her Majesty’s army and navy are also, in the most comprehensive sense, general practitioners. Your petitioners, therefore, in the earnest desire which they entertain that the general practitioners of the United Kingdom should be incorporated, in a collegiate form, by royal charter, in which shall be secured to them the right to direct the educa- tion, examination, and admission of members of their own branch of the profession, pray, That no general Billfor the regulation of the medical profes- sion be proceeded with until such charter has been granted and confirmed by act of Parliament. A deputation having been appointed to wait on those members of the House of Commons who are connected with this county, the meeting adjourned. PETITION TO SIR JAMES GRAHAM FROM THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS OF COLCHESTER. To the Right Honourable Sir James Graham, Bart., her Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Memorial of the undersigned Practitioners of Medicine and Surgery, resident in Colchester and its neighbourhood, RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH,- That your memorialists are legally-qualified practitioners of medicine and surgery. That while they acknowledge thewantof legislative interference, in order to control the numerous medical corporations, and render medical education uniform, they look upon the Bill for Regu- lating the Profession of Physic and Surgery," now before parlia- ment, as exceedingly defective and objectionable in many par- ticulars, and calculated to inflict grievous injury upon the great bulk of the general practitioners of medicine and surgery in this country. That having carefully examined the Bill in question, and having compared it with that introduced to parliament during

Upload: dangkhuong

Post on 30-Dec-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: PETITION TO SIR JAMES GRAHAM FROM THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS OF COLCHESTER

365

Proposed by Mr. WALLACE, of Carshalton, and seconded byMr. SHELLEY, of Epsom, and resolved unanimously,-

That having considered the " Bill for regulating the profes-sion of Physic and Surgery" recently presented to the House ofCommons, this meeting consider the Bill to be so objectionablein many of its provisions that it ought on no account to pass intoa law in its present state."

Proposed by Mr. WARD, of Epsom, seconded by Mr. CURTIS,of Dorking, and resolved unanimously.

That this meeting approve of a Council of Health, if properlyconstituted, but are of opinion that the Council, as proposedby the Bill, would neither possess nor deserve the confidence ofthe profession. Being composed exclusively of physicians andsurgeons, it would not represent the interests, nor express thewishes, of the great body of the medical practitioners throughoutthe United Kingdom."Proposed by Mr. CHALDECOTT, of Dorking, seconded by Mr.

CHANDLER, of Godalming, and resolved unanimously,-That the proposed removal of the superintendence of the

education of general practitioners or licentiates from a bodyemanating from their own class to the Colleges of Physicians andSurgeons, is calculated to excite great alarm in the minds ofgeneral practitioners, as they cannot but apprehend, as the resultof such arrangement, the introduction into the profession of abody of licentiates possessing an inferior degree of attainment, andconsequent depreciation of their class in public estimation."

Proposed by Mr. NAPPER, of Guildford, seconded by Mr.HOWELL, of Wandsworth, and resolved unanimously,-

That this meeting, entertaining a high sense of respect andhonour for the Society of Apothecaries, desire to express senti-ments of entire approbation of their spirited and disinterestedconduct at this momentous period, and of gratitude for the earnestwish of the Society to render assistance in promoting the wishesand objects of their professional brethren."Proposed by Mr. HOWELL, of Wandsworth, seconded by Mr.

JONES, of Epsom, and resolved unanimously,-« That the cordiality and good feeling which ought to exist

between the different classes of practitioners in medicine, andwhich are essential to their usefulness to society, cannot be main-tained, unless those classes, which have been created by the publicwants, are independent of each other in their educational and in-ternal arrangements."

Proposed by Mr. HARCOURT, of Chertsey, seconded by Mr.BOULGER, of Bletchingley, and resolved unanimously,-

" That this meeting approve of those parts of the Bill whichpropose to establish a uniform standard of education and qualifi-cation, and the right to practise, by all qualified persons, withoutrespect to local privileges, provided such uniformity is not at-tended by a depreciation of the standard of knowledge."Proposed by Mr. STEDMAN, of Guildford, seconded by Mr.

COLE, of Chertsey, and resolved unanimously,-" That it is essential to the public health that the visiting the

sick and prescribing for them at their own homes, with the viewto pecuniary payment and profit, by uneducated and unlicensedpersons, be liable to summary and inexpensive conviction andpunishment, on proof before the local magistracy."

Proposed by Mr. PETER MARTIN, of Reigate, seconded byKNOWLES, of Farnham, and resolved unanimously,-

" That this meeting earnestly desire that the general practi-tioners of the United Kingdom should be incorporated in a col-legiate form, by royal charter, confirmed by act of parliament, sothat they may be authorized to direct the education, examination,-and admission, of candidates for general practice, and thereby berendered eligible for the exercise of the franchise in the electionof members of the Council cr governing body, or as candidatesfor seats in that Council; and that this measure be secured to them previously to the further progress of the ‘ Bill for regulatingthe profession of Physic and Surgery’ through the House ofCommons." .

Proposed by Mr. NASH, of Leatherhead, seconded by Mr.HAMPTON, of Reigate, and resolved unanimously,-

" That in conformity to the previous resolutions, the followingpetition be adopted and presented to the House of Commons ;that one of the county members be respectfully requested topresent the same; that the other members of this county, and theborough towns in this county, be requested to support and to give eall the effect they can to the prayer of the petition."To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.The humble petition of the undersigned Practitioners of

Medicine, Surgery, and Midwifery, or, as they are usuallydenominated, " General Practitioners of Medicine," resid-ing in the rural districts of the county of Surrey,

SHEWETH,—That your petitioners have duly considered the" Bill for regulating the profession of Physic and Surgery" lately,presented to your honourable house, and are humbly of opinion,that were the said Bill to be carried into a law, it would alto-gether fail in accomplishing the beneficent intentions of the legis-lature.

That your petitioners view with great alarm the proposedconstitution of the " Council of Health," as not being likely topossess the confidence of the profession generally. They cannotrefrain from expressing their surprise and regret that no generalpractitioner is, by this Bill, proposed to be appointed on theCouncil of Health, thereby witholding from that most importantand numerous body a voice in the Council, whence it is proposedshould emanate all the laws and regulations which will have soimportant, so vital an effect, on the future condition of the greatbody of the medical practitioners throughout the United King-dom.Your petitioners fear, also, the consequences of the absolute

and despotic powers proposed to be conferred on the Council ofHealth, from whose decisions, whatever they may be, there is noappeal. That in the partial repeal of the Apothecaries’ Act of1815, your petitioners feel assured that the power left to theSociety of Apothecaries to proceed against unlicensed practi-tioners would be of no avail, on account of the expensive andcumbrous nature of the legal proceedings, and the want of fundsto meet the expense.

That notwithstanding the comprehensive and apparently satis-factory nature of the protection sought by this Bill to be affordedto the public and the profession, evasion, by unqualified and un-educated pretenders, would not be difficult.And your petitioners beg to add that there are other points

of important objection in the proposed Bill, but which they refrainfrom particularizing on the present occasion.

That your petitioners wish it always to be borne in mind, in awise medical legislation, that the welfare of the whole people, andthe real interests, usefulness, and respectability of those who arethe medical advisers, in ordinary, of the great majority of thepublic, are identical.

That in the humble opinion of your petitioners, this Bill, in itsgeneral tendency, instead of improving and elevating, will con-tribute to the deterioration and degradation of the general practi-tioner.

Moreover, the general practitioners are not only the medical at-tendants in ordinary of most of the higher and middle classes ofsociety, and exclusively of the labouring classes, but also a largemajority of the medical appointments to public offices in theprovinces, and a large proportion of those in the metropolis, areheld by them. The entire medical staff of surgeons of her

Majesty’s army and navy are also, in the most comprehensivesense, general practitioners.Your petitioners, therefore, in the earnest desire which they

entertain that the general practitioners of the United Kingdomshould be incorporated, in a collegiate form, by royal charter,in which shall be secured to them the right to direct the educa-tion, examination, and admission of members of their ownbranch of the profession, pray,

That no general Billfor the regulation of the medical profes-sion be proceeded with until such charter has been granted andconfirmed by act of Parliament.

A deputation having been appointed to wait on those membersof the House of Commons who are connected with this county,the meeting adjourned.

PETITION TO SIR JAMES GRAHAM FROM THEMEDICAL PRACTITIONERS OF COLCHESTER.

To the Right Honourable Sir James Graham, Bart., her Majesty’sprincipal Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The Memorial of the undersigned Practitioners of Medicineand Surgery, resident in Colchester and its neighbourhood,RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH,-

That your memorialists are legally-qualified practitioners ofmedicine and surgery.That while they acknowledge thewantof legislative interference,

in order to control the numerous medical corporations, and rendermedical education uniform, they look upon the Bill for Regu-lating the Profession of Physic and Surgery," now before parlia-ment, as exceedingly defective and objectionable in many par-ticulars, and calculated to inflict grievous injury upon the greatbulk of the general practitioners of medicine and surgery in thiscountry.

That having carefully examined the Bill in question, andhaving compared it with that introduced to parliament during

Page 2: PETITION TO SIR JAMES GRAHAM FROM THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS OF COLCHESTER

366

the last session, your memorialists gratefully acknowledge the,recognition of the principle of protection, in the amended Bill, asnecessary to prevent the ravages of quackery upon the publichealth, but they at the same time are of opinion that the alteredrelation of the Apothecaries’ Company to the profession, effectedby the Bill, will render the penal clause of the Apothecaries’ Actof 1815 altogether inoperative against ignorant pretenders, andto maintain the respectability of the profession, the penalty in-troduced against those who may assume medical titles must beextended to all who may exercise the functions of the medicalpractitioner, no less than to those who merely assume his titles.

That your memorialists strongly object to the constitution andpowers of the contemplated °‘ Council of Health," as opposed tothe spirit of the British constitution, and the dignity of the en-lightened profession to which they belong. They cannot butview with alarm the idea of the whole profession, in its education,institutions, and interests, being committed to a body of men,however personally unobjectionable, who will be altogether irre-sponsible to their brethren for the exercise of their functions,some of whom will necessarily be unacquainted with the natureof the profession they are appointed to govern, and nearly all ofwhom will possess but little sympathy with the great bulk of thepractitioners of the country. They consider the power vested inthe Crown, in the appointment of the council, as disproportionate,and the exclusion of the general practitioner, except by thefavour of the minister of the day, as exceedingly unjust and ob-jectionable.

That the distinctions created by the Bill among the severalsections of the profession are invidious and unjust.

That the great body of general practitioners, who are membersof the College of Surgeons, and who have considered their claimto the honourable designation of 11 surgeon" inalienable and per-petual, should henceforth be deprived of this just distinction, beplaced on a level with those who have not entitled themselves toit, and be degraded below that small section of their brethrenwho have no higher qualification (so far, at least, as educationalsuperiority is concerned) than the mass, are grievances to whichyour memorialists cannot submit without the most indignant, yetrespectful, protest.

That the new regulations respecting midwifery intended bythe Bill, so far as providing for examination without furthermedical education, and the exemption of that most importantbranch of practice from the penal clause of the Bill, are exceed-ingly objectionable, inasmuch as no person ought to be allowedto exercise that branch of the profession who is not thoroughlyinstructed in all the collateral parts of medical education, and thusable intelligently to engage in a department of practice requiringas much knowledge and skill as any other.Your memorialists, in conclusion, venture to hope that the ex-

pressions of kind and respectful interest uttered by Sir JamesGraham, in his place in parliament, in reference to the medicalprofession, will secure for these suggestions a favourable con-sideration. They beg -

1st. That the constitution of the " Council of Health" maybe altered so as to admit general practitioners among itsmembers, and that its powers may be more defined andlimited.

2ndly. That protection be given against all unlicensed in-truders who may exercise the functions, or assume the titles,of the medical practitioner, and that powers be vested insome corporate body, recognised by the state as legalguardians of the medical profession, to carry into effectthose penal sections which may be granted for its pro-tection. And,

3rdly. That no distinctions, except such as superior educa-tion and extensive experience may confer, be given tomembers of the profession, and that these be tested im-partially by a competent medical tribunal, whose purityand efficiency shall be preserved and maintained by theprinciple of representation being fully recognised in theelection of its members.

THE PROTEST OF CERTAIN PRACTITIONERS OFWEST SOMERSET.

To the President and Council of the Royal College of Surgeonsof England.

WE, the undersigned, being fellows and members of the RoyalCollege of Surgeons of England, residing in the western divisionof the county of Somerset, although averse to taking any stepsthat might prejudice the interests of that body, particularly at thepresent crisis, yet feel it due to ourselves, as individuals, to recordour earnest and indignant protest against the recent proceedingsof the Council in the matter of the fellowship.

We protest against this as a departure from rules of theCollege intended for the protection of its members, inasmuch asthe arbitrary elevation of a few to the distinction of a fellowship,having no particular claim either on the grounds of seniority ormerit, cannot but be regarded as a virtual degradation of the manywho have received no such distinction.We consider the invitation to the mass of the profession to

undergo examination, and to payfees, in order to obtain the rankwhich has been thus conceded to a select few without either, tobe an affront to all those other members of the College.Henry Alford, F.R.c.s.E., TauntonFrancis Welch, F.R.c.s.z., dittoC. Hayes Higgins, F.R.C.S.E., dittoC. H. Cornish, F.R.c.s.E., dittoGustavus Gidley, dittoDaniel Pargitter, M. R. C. S. L., dittoJohn Liddon, M.R.C.S.L., dittoCharles Hugo, M.R.C.S.E., dittoW. Marwood Kelly, M.D., M.R.C.S.E.,and L.A.c., Hospital, ditto

George Cordwent, M.R.C.S.L., dittoHenry Gully Foy, Ai.R.c.s.E., dittoJames Wood, M.R.c.s.L., dittoJ. R. Mosse, M.R.c.s.E., dittoWilliam Beadon, M.R.c.s.L., dittoF. H. Woodforde, M.D., M.R.C.S.L.,

dittoHenry Liddon, M.R.C.S.L., dittoFrancis Foster, M.R.C.S E., dittoGeo. Kidgell, M.R.C.S.L., WellingtonW. Collard Pyne, M.R.c.s., ditto

W.C. Pyne,jun., M.R.C.S.,We1Jingt;onS. F. Bridge, M.R c.s., dittoAlbert Langley, :&1. R.C.S., dittoA. E. Webber, M.R.C.S., dittoH. W. Randolph, M.R.C.S.L., Miiirer-ton

J. K. Parkinson, M.R.c.s.L., dittoWm. Trevor, M.R.C.S.L., Dulverton

, A. F. Edwards, M.R.C.S.L., Wivelis-combe

J. V. Norman, M.R.c.s.L., dittoHenry Cotes, M.R.c.s.L , dittoH. L. Nazer, M.R.C.S.L., dittoP. L. Hill, M R.c.s.L., dittoRobert Smith, M.R.C.S.E., Bishop’s

, LydeardAbraham King, BridgewaterRichard Axford, dittoJames Haviland, M.R.C.S.L., ditto

J. Jolliffe, M.R.C.S.L., ChardG. R. Burt, M.R.C.S.L., Ihninster.

THE CAP AND GOWN QUESTION AT UNIVERSITYCOLLEGE.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-May I beg you will allow me to correct a slight errorcontained in a paragraph which appeared in your journal ofSaturday last, relative to the meeting held by the students ofUniversity College, on the cap and gown question. It is statedin that paragraph, that " an unanimous resolution was adopted infavour of wearing an academical costume." Sir, the word " una-nimous" should have been omitted, for there was considerableopposition to that resolution, and at one period of the evening it wasvery much doubted whether or not it would be agreed to; how-ever, eventually it was carried, not unanimously, but by a majorityof about two to one. Knowing how valuably your pages are occu-pied, I should not have troubled you with this statement, did I notthink it due to those gentlemen who supported the amendment Ihad the honour of proposing to the original motion on that occa-sion, and to show that there are many, very many, students in thiscollege, who are not so sanguine as to believe that the mere adop-tion of caps and gowns would either add to its dignity, or in-crease its prosperity.-I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

JAMES TEAGUE.University College, March, 1845.

THE SYDENHAM SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—I consider your review of Mr. Erichsen’s work uponAneurism a most just one: the publication is unquestionably anhonour to its editor, and to the Society from which it emanated.I hope, with you, however, that the approbation thus honestlyawarded to the Council of the Sydenham Society, may not inducethem, for the present, at least, to present us with more works of thecollectanea character. We require (as you observe) standardeditions of the great medical works of antiquity, in order thatthe general practitioners of the kingdom may be afforded theopportunity of perusing them as they issue, at regular intervals,.from the press ; they would thus slowly, but certainly, acquire amass of practical knowledge, and an improved acquaintance withthe dead languages, which would raise them in public opinion,and thus materially aid in destroying the false and unjust dis-tinctions which the Government seem disposed to establishbetween them and the so-called °° pures" of the profession ; toassist in this desirable object, any proposal which will economizetime and facilitate perusal ought to be adopted by the Council.Your suggestion, therefore, of having the text and the translationin " vis-a-vis" pages is an excellent one ; and I sincerely trust itmay be seriously considered, and adopted in future publications.Pray urge it most strenuously upon the Council, for the sake ofthe hard-working general practitioner, whose friend you haveever shown yourself to be, and whom you well know, has littlespare time to refer to dictionaries, or translations, in other books.

I understand, that nearly one-half of the present members ofthe Society do not possess the works issued the first year, but

JAMES TEAGUE.