294

resigns his commission ; also is permitted to retain his rankand to wear the prescribed uniform on his retirement (datedFeb. 4th, 1888).ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS. - 1st Volunteer (Norfolk)

Brigade, Eastern Division, Royal Artillery : Richard BlaneyWrightson, M.D., to be Acting Surgeon (dated Feb. 4tb, 1888).RIFLE VOLUNTEEE,$.-lst Dumbartonshire: The under-

mentioned Acting Surgeons resign their appointments :-J. F. Murison, M.B., and A. Martin, M.B. (both datedFeb. 4th, 1888).-3rd (Dundee Highland) Volunteer Bat-talion, the Black Watch (Royal Highlanders): Surgeon P.Young resigns his commission (dated Feb. 4th, 1888).

Correspondence.ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.

"Audi alteram partem."

To the Editors of THE LANCET. ]

SiRS,-The profession owes a debt of gratitude to the the Censors’ Board of the College of Physicians for the Iaction recently taken by that body, which received thesupport of a large number of Fellows at the last

1

Comitia. In referring to the subject, I am not, of course, ;going to lift the veil of secrecy which is imposed byan effete bye-law wholly out of tune with present- iday*ideas, but I cannot refrain from expressing my own I

opinions upon a matter of vital importance to the Ihonour and dignity of a calling which is in such danger (of being degraded through wilful resort to the arts of thetradesman, or a sublime indifference to the higher motives, ]and a culpable laxity in declining to condemn the iadoption of such arts by others. Individually thereis not a Fellow of the College who, if asked theplain question whether advertising for the sake ofpersonal profit were a legitimate mode of aiding one’s iadvancement in the profession, would not hold up his handsin horror at the bare idea of such a thing. I fear that wesadly want to "clear our minds of cant" in this matter.We live in an advertising age, and at no time has the loveof notoriety been greater. All the more reason, then, forcircumspection, and a clear understanding of the distinctionbetween what is legitimate and right and what is inad-missible and even culpable. Such resolutions as that passedlast week touch but one point, but they must do somegood by awakening in the callous the sense of what is

unbecoming in conduct on the part of those who shouldvalue personal honour above public notoriety.With respect to a difficulty which seems to beset so many

minds-viz., where to draw the line,-it is easy, of course,to leave the decision to each individual concerned, in thebelief that if right-minded he will not trangress, and willhold his peace if he does. This is all very well and proper,but it shows a lack of knowledge of the circumstances inwhich we live. It is as absurd as it is wrong to place inthe same category elementary instruction in physiology andhygiene with that of so-called "domestic medicine" andthe popular advocacy of some special line of treatment.The line cannot be drawn precisely, and there is no doubt adown grade from the highly legitimate, nay desirable,position of the one, to the handbill or circular that placesthe professional man on a level with the lowest quack. Sothat to a certain extent it is not possible to arbitrarilydefine the limits of popular medical writing, and it mustbe left to the individual conscience of what is right. If,then, one actuated by the best of motives do unwittinglytransgress, he should be made to feel that he has sinnedagainst a recognised moral code, but not be held upto condemnation. Let him depart in peace and sin nomore. Far different should our treatment be of those whofor the sake of gain pursue these advertising arts. I donot hesitate to say that they should be scouted by thewhole profession until they amend their ways. But thewhole subject was so fully and boldly treated by thephysician who gave the Introductory Lecture at UniversityCollege last October that I need not develop it here. Sufficeit to say that personally 1 thoroughly endorse his views.

Holding these opinions, I may perhaps be pardoned if IR7lhP(’.r7hP mV!’:.Alf. Ynnrs ffdthfnHv.

Feb. 7th, 1888.uliy.A JUNIOR FELLOW.

REFORM AT THE ROYAL COLLEGE OFSURGEONS.

i To the Editors of THE LANCET.SrR,s,-The first thought that must strike any reader of

the manifesto of the President of the Royal College of

Surgeons, which is likely for many reasons to become a.historical document, can be none other than one of deepregret. Not only is it an illustration of the time-wornsaw Parturiunt montes, but it does no credit to an ancientcorporation such as this that, even in the defence of anuntenable position, such a lamentable gathering of ill-assorted arguments should be marshaled. The battalionmight well have been collected from the anthropophagi; forthe reasoning employed is of such a nature that one proposi-tion devours its neighbour. We are unfeignedly sorry toreflect how little such a reply as this will add to the repu-tation of the College, for it does not need a man of the legalacumen of Lord Cranbrook to spy out at once the incon-sistency of this remarkable fulmination. The "reply" isnominally directed to the statement of the Association ofFellows; but as it deals as much with the claims of theMembers as with those of the former body, we beg yourindulgence for a few remarks thereon. We should trespasstoo much upon your space did we deal with each clauseseriatirrt, and therefore must single out one or two of the,more glaring defects.The very first statement contains a misstatement, for

it numbers the Members at 18,000, though both Mr. Holmesand Dr. Danford Thomas informed the Council at thelast general meeting of th results of our scrutinyof’ the " list of Members." Under 12,000 was the numberwe arrived at after most careful search through thelast Medical Register. Surely the Council might .have-instructed the College secretary to verify or disprove-our assertion, before making public so incorrect a com-putation ! The petition of the Members had beensigned by 4665 Members, and that, of course, was a muchsmaller proportion of 18,000 than of 12,000. The Councilstates that there was " no evidence before the Councilthat the majority of even the Members themselves are infavour of the claims set up on their behalf." Has the Councilever sought for such evidence ? No; yet it has beenabundantly supplied to it, not only when it was informedon Nov. 3rd, 1887, of the number of signatures, and that inmany large towns from two-thirds to three-quarters of the.Members living there had actually signed; not only in theridiculous number of dissentient Members (fourteen) whohad recorded their disapprobation of the petition, but also’in the enormous majorities in favour of the resolutions.passed at the College at successive general meetings. Isthis evidence ? If not, why did not the Council poll its ownMembers? The Members would not have grudged the expenseinvolved-considerably under .E100. As to its poll of theFellows, the disingenuity of that you have long ago exposed.Yet the Council, which treats so lightly a matter of nearly 5000signatures, plumes itself upon a document signed by themagnificent total of " over six hundred," and on a majorityof six out of eighteen in the first, thinly attended andbadly advertised, of the series of general meetings. It is-

, careful also to include two propositions in one sentence, and, to make its lame answer to one only do duty for a judgment, on both. This is a very poor feint. It has been maintainedI ere this on behalf of the Council that it would be unfair t()

deprive the Fellows of the electoral value for the extra.

’ money defrayed by them upon an extended course of pro-fessional study; but now the Council tries to make a point

, out of the present possibilities of obtaining the Fellowshipr11 without any further special curriculum of professionalLstudy involving additional expense." One clause objects to-)Members of twenty years’ standing being eligible to theCouncil on the ground that it would substitute mere seniority) for professional distinction. There is no question of substi-) tution, for the proportion of seats asked for by the Members3is small, and they may be trusted to take care that they3 eleet men of " professional distinction," for such are not unknown among the ranks of the general practitioners.7The time limit may also be looked upon as a self-denying3 ordinance on the part of the Members.

We are not at present so directly interested as the Fellows.I are in the question of the election of the President; but

may point out that clauses c, d, e, and f are mutually anta-gonistic in their bearings, and that clause f, where the