755

while it showed a want to be remedied as regards the school.This, however, was a matter for the general public, whoseinterest in it was larger than that of any section of thecommunity, inasmuch as the elevation of the medical pro-fession in skill and knowledge was of the highest import-ance to all. On the other hand, every fresh bed providedby the public would be thankfully accepted by some poorsufferer the moment it was ready to be occupied. It was,indeed, a question of enlarging the hospital; it might beeven of rebuilding it entirely. The matter was now underserious consideration. He had a very important announce-ment to make, and it was this-viz., that the esteemed andhonoured treasurer of the college, Sir Francis Goldsmid,who, like his revered father, had been one of the best andstaunchest friends both to the college and hospital, hadoffered the princely donation of £10 000 towards rebuilding,provided .820,000 more were subscribed by others beforecommencing the work.

THE

GENERAL COUNCIL OF MEDICALEDUCATION & REGISTRATION.

Session 1877.

TUESDAY, MAY 15TH.bTR. TEALE asked the President if he was prepared to state

what were the Parliamentary matters requiring the opinionof the Council during the present session which most

earnestly demanded consideration.The PRESIDENT said that applications had been made by

the Government for the opinion of the Council on foreignand colonial degrees and on the education and registrationof midwives. Two subjects had been referred to the Councilfrom other sources-viz., the East London Medical DefenceAssociation and the Obstetrical Society. The last was thatreferred to by the Government in relation to midwives. Allof them had been referred to the Medical Acts’ AmendmentCommittee. The amendment of Russell Gurney’s Bill as towomen, and the amendment of the Lunacy Acts in a parti-cular known to the Council, had also to be considered.On the motion of Sir JAMES PAGET, seconded by Mr.

SIMON, two documents relating to a legal difficulty, hinder-ing the College of the Surgeons from taking part in a con-joint examination for the examination of women candidatesfor a licence in midwifery, were referred to the MedicalActs Committee. The first was a memorandum on the sub-

ject by the President and Vice-presidents of the Collegedated March 23rd, and the other was a copy of the resolu-tions passed by the College on March 27th—viz.:—" Thatthe Council of the College of Surgeons regards women asnot eligible to become members or fellows of the College,and is therefore not prepared to admit them to be examinedfor those qualifications, whether at the examinations as nowconducted or with the proposed machinery of joint examina-tions ; but that the Council, if legally authorised, would bewilling to take part in special joint-arrangements underwhich women should be able to acquire other registrabletitles for practice. That, with regard to the midwiferyboard and midwifery licence of the College, the Councilapproves and adopts in principle the report this day read ofthe President and Vice-President, and authorises the Pre-sident and Vice-Presidents to take such steps as they mayfind expedient in order to promote the suggested amend-ment of law, and otherwise to give effect to the suggestionsof the report. That a copy of the above resolutions, and ofthe memorandum of the President and Vice-Presidents, becommunicated (but not for publication) to the Conference ofRepresentatives on the Conjoint Scheme."Dr. WOOD read, and moved that it be entered on the

Minutes, the following memorial from the Royal College ofSurgeons of Edinburgh, in regard to dental surgeons :-

°° The memorial of the President’s Council of the RoyalCollege of Surgeons of Edinburgh sheweth,-

"That your memorialists have had their attention drawnto certain proposals at present before the Royal College ofSurgeons of England, to the effect that those persons onlywho possess the qualification of Licentiate in Dental Sur-gery of the Royal College of Surgeons of England shallbe entitled to use the designation of Dental Surgeon, Sur-geon Dentist,’ &c.; also, that a special schedule be addedto the Medical Act for the registration of dental surgeonsas such;’ as well as to certain other suggestions that thoseonly who possess the said qualification of Licentiate inDental Surgery shall be entitled to hold dental appoint-ments in hospitals, or to sign schedules, or grant certificatesof attendance to dental students.

11 That your memorialists are of opinion that the sugges-tions and requirements of the Royal College of Surgeons ofEngland regarding registration of dental surgeons, andotherwise, could only receive effect under thb authority ofan Act of Parliament, and that such legislatio, as creatinga monopoly of teaching and registration of dental surgeons,would be injurious to the interests of the oher surgicalcorporations recognised by the Medical Act and an inter-ference with the rights and privileges of the, members orlicentiates of these bodies.

11 That your memorialists are further of opmion that ifthe separate registration of dental surgeons in the MedicalRegister should be found to be either necessary or expedient,the right to such registration should not exclusively beconfined to the members or licentiates of one corporation,but be extended to all the institutions who at present grantdiplomas in surgery.

66 Your memorialists therefore pray that the sanction ofthe General Medical Council shall not be given to anyapplication for power to register the qualifications of dentalsurgeons, without obtaining the approval or the views of allthe licensing bodies, under the Medical Act, possessing aninterest in the matter referred to.v-V-v-V _p

In the name of the Council,(Signed) HENRY D. LITTLEJOHN, M.D.,

President."

Dr. STORRAR said he had expected to have been madethe medium of a communication on the same subject fromthe English dentists, but he had been informed that theyhad resolved to defer the consideration of the matter forthe present. The committee, he thought, could hardlyreport upon the subject without fuller materia1s than thosefurnished from the College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

Dr. WOOD thought the Council should give an opinionupon two points: whether there should be a separate registerfor dentists, and whether, if so, only those who bad passedthe College of Surgeons of England were entitled to beregistered.

Sir J. PAGET said that no application was being con-

sidered by the College of Surgeons to the effact that onlythe licentiates of that body should be registered. Heshould be sorry to have it supposed that the College wasencouraging any such proceeding.The memorial was referred to the Medical Acts Com-

mittee.The name of John Joseph Mullen, of Brisbane, was

ordered, on the recommendation of the Executive Com-mittee, to be restored to the Register.The Council then took into consideration the case of

Thomas Richardson, of Millom, who had been summoned toshow cause why his name should not be erased from theRegister on the ground that the entry was " fraudulentlyor incorrectly made." Mr. Richardson was represented byMr. Myers Meekin, solicitor.Mr. OuvRy, the solicitor of the Council, stated the par-

ticulars of the case. It appeared that Mr. Richardson hadbeen registered on the strength of a diploma of M.D. fromthe Metropolitan Medical College of New York. The

diploma stated that the holder had attended lectures duringthe full time required, and had passed a creditable examina-tion, the fact being that Mr. Richardson had not been inAmerica at the time mentioned. It was stated that severalother practitioners had been struck off the Register onsimilar grounds, holding diplomas of the same body. Mr.

756

Ouvry mentioned that there was some evidence that Mr. was a very harsh one; and whether the verdict was rightRichardson had been connected with an agency in the Isle they could scarcely inquire. For himself he could not seeof Man for granting degrees to practitioners. He further any evidence of fraud. After his conviction Dr. McSheedystated that under the Medical Act foreign diplomas could brought an action against his attorney for fraud, and wasonly be registered if the holders had been practising in then able for the first time to state his own case upon oath;England "as physicians" before the passing of the Act, and he submitted that the facts then elicited showed thatwhereas Mr. Richardson had only kept a shop and sold there was at any rate a great extenuation of his conduct.medicines. It appeared that the first life he had wrongly certified was

Mr. MEEKIN addressed the Council in behalf of Mr. that of a Mr. Boucher, who had previously been insured,Richardson, who, he said, was not only a client, but a valued and who was alive and healthy at the present moment, andpersonal friend. He said it was not obligatory, but only Dr. McSheedy was acquainted with him. The agent of thediscretionary, on the part of the Council to remove names company, Mr. Fitzgerald, anxious to do a great deal ofincorrectly entered, and he appealed to the Council not to business, endeavoured to get persons interested in the livesexercise its discretion against his aged client, who would be to effect insurances on them ; and he did not scruple to askreduced thereby to a state of abject poverty. Mr. Richardson medical men to certify without examination. He pressedhad from early youth had a great desire to practise medi- Dr. McSheedy, then a young and inexperienced man, havingcine, but had not the means of obtaining the necessary been only two years in the profession, and having borne aneducation. He received, however, instruction from some irreproachable character, to certify Mr. Boucher. The

practitioners in Cheadle, and afterwards conducted a school, person insuring his life was a tenant who held a lease inso that he was not an ignorant and uneducated man. While which one of the lives was that of Mr. Boucher, so that heat Birmingham he became acquainted with some persons had an insurable interest. Mr. Boucher, however, wouldconnected with the American College, which was a chartered not appear and facilitate the insurance. Dr. McSheedy atbody, and qualified to grant degrees. A branch of the first refused, but the agent finally brought him the answersCollege was established at Birmingham, from which he taken down by a medical referee on a former occasion, andobtained a diploma in 1857. Dr. Hawkins had taken a long also gave him a written authority stating that he had powertime to make inquiries on the subject, and had then entered to dispense with personal examination in any case. UponMr. Richardson’s name on the Register. With regard to that he was induced to do what was no doubt very repre-the advertisement issued from the Isle of Man, although hensible; but he had no interest in the matter beyond hisMr. Richardson’s name was affixed to it, he absolutely guinea fee, and there was no fraud whatever upon the com.denied having any connexion with it. He had practised pany, the life being a perfectly good one. The next casein the United Kingdom for seventeen years, and in Dundee was that of his own brother-in-law, in whose life he washe had received a voluntary testimonial from his patients, himself interested, because he owed him money, and themany of whom were in a good position in society. He had agent suggested that Dr. McSheedy should insure his life.practised for some time in Willom, where he (Mr. Meekin) He had previously examined him for another company andwas coroner, and had laboured assiduously and effectively had been in the habit of attending him; but the brother-among his patients. It was a singular coincidence that an in-law would not facilitate the insurance, there being ainterval of ten months had elapsed between his arrival at quarrel between them. Immediately after he had impro-Willom and the holding of any inquest. It was therefore perly signed the certificate he began to think that thereevident that his medical attendance had not had any detri- was something wrong in his being personally interested,mental effect on the health of the inhabitants. No inquest and he requested the agent to mention the fact of hishad ever been held in Willom on any patient whom he had interest to the company. The agent did not do so, and heattended. He should have no hesitation in calling in Mr. accordingly wrote to the company asking them to cancelRichardson to attend the members of his own family. the policy. That, though not an atonement for the offence,

Dr. WOOD inquired why so many years had been allowed was, he thought, some extenuation of it; and he hoped thatto elapse before taking any proceedings in the matter. the Council, taking into consideration Dr. McSheedy’s twoMr. OuvRy stated that in 1861 two persons had been years’ exile from his profession, would restore his name to

struck off the Register because they had been incautious the Register. The case might have been different if any .enough to send in their diplomas. The gentlemen who had loss had been sustained by the company.since been implicated were wise enough not to do so. He Mr. OUVRY asked whether Mr. Butt thought the Councilhad endeavoured to summon two other practitioners besides had power to restore the name under the Act.Mr. Richardson, but they could not be found. A great stir Mr. BUTT referred to Clause 14, which, he said, gave thehad lately been made on the subject, and hence the Branch Council authority to do so.Council had instructed him to take the matter in hand. Mr. OuvRy said that clause applied only to the case of a

Dr. WOOD asked what was the precise nature of the person having his name erased on the ground of not an-charge ? swering the registrar’s letter within six months.Mr. OuvRy replied that of procuring himself to be regis- Mr. BUTT said, if that were so, the present case might be

tered on a diploma that stated that which was not true; treated as an original application to register. But he thoughtand also of stating that he had been practising in England it might be considered that the power was inherent in theas a physician before 1858. Council without any express provision. If, for instance, a

Dr. HUMPHRY said it did not follow that a fraud had conviction were set aside, it would be a great hardship ifbeen committed because the diploma contained an inaccurate the Council could not restore the name of the convictedstatement. person.

Sir D. CORRIGAN said that the Council had got into a The PRESIDENT called attention to a case in which a name" scrape: ’ The only thing that could be said was that the had been restored in 1871 after removal for a conviction forCollege in New York had told a lie. misdemeanour.Some further questions having been asked and answered The case of James Meehan, M.D., whose name had been

as to the facts of the case, the Council deliberated in private, erased under similar circumstances, was then considered byand decided that the name should be erased from the the Council. Both the petitioners having briefly addressedRegister. the Council, their cases were deliberated on in private,The Council then proceeded to consider a petition for After a short time the two gentlemen were called in, and

restoration to the Register from Michael McSheedy. The informed that the Council had unanimously resolved topetitioner was represented by restore their names to the Register. Dr. McSheedy and

Mr. BUTT, Q C., who said there could be no doubt that Dr. Meehan returned their best thanks to the Council, andDr. McSheedy had been guilty of a very improper act-viz., expressed a hope that their future conduct would justifythat of certifying that he had examined two lives for in- the decision at which it had arrived.surance when he had not examined them at all; but the An application for restoration to the Register on behalfquestion was whether the Council would not regard the of Samuel Levenston was considered in private, and re-punishment he had already suffered as a sufficient penalty jected, unless Mr.Levenston should furnish to the Executivefor the offence. It appeared that he was tried at the Lim- Committee satisfactory evidence of character.erick assizes, together with the agent of the insurance com- The Council also considered in private a petition for

pany and another person, for conspiring to defraud the restoration to the Register from Henry Pearson, and reocompany, and they were convicted. The law of conspiracy solved not to make any order thereupon.