838

tality of Longton, unlike that of London, is very high (316per 1000) even without reckoning small-pox, and Dr. Weaversees no prospect of its being lowered whilst the nuisanceof privies continues, and whilst there is defective sewerage.

THE PROFESSORSHIPS AT THE COLLEGE OFSURGEONS.

AT the meeting of the Council on Thursday, the 8th in st.,the nominations for the different professorships of the

College were made as follows :-For the Board of Examinersin Midwifery (at which Dr. Farre has occupied a seat nearlytwenty years): Drs. Farre, Priestley, and Barnes (thepresent incumbents), with Drs. Hewitt, Braxton Hicks, andMeadows. For the Professorship of Surgery vacated byMr. Birkett: Messrs. Spencer Smith, Humphry, and Gay,(who are members of the Council), with Messrs. Holmesand Callender. For the Lectureship vacated by Mr. Hulke:Messrs. Humphry, Henry Power, and Callender. For theHunterian Professorship, and for the Professorship of Der-matology, Mr. Flower and Mr. Erasmus Wilson are alonenominated.We are happy to believe that, as regards the professorship

of Surgery at least, there is a growing opinion in theCouncil that the appointment should not be confined tomembers of the Council alone, and it appears to us that thisfeeling should weigh more especially in respect of the

lectureship, the object of which is to bring the mostmodern researches in anatomy and physiology before theFellows and Members of the College. It appears to usrather remarkable that two gentlemen should be nominatedfor both these offices, and that, with one exception, all thenames mentioned in connexion with them are more or lessassociated with one great metropolitan school.

Correspondence.

THE BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.

EDWARD WATERS.

"Audi alteram partem."

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SiR,-As Dr. Acland has announced in THE LANCET thesecession of himself and his four colleagues from the BritishMedical Association, as " an unavoidable sequel to the

correspondence with Dr. Paget, published in your journalon May 27th," and as it is but just that everyone shouldbear the responsibility attaching to his own actions, I shallfeel obliged by your permitting me to avow myself thesole author of the letter in THE LANCET for April 1st, whichoriginated the correspondence referred to. ’,The letter was written without communication with any

other member of the Reform Committee of the Association, ’,or with anyone, and nothing could be further from myintention or my wishes, in writing it, than to do any in-justice to Dr. Paget or his colleagues.

I knew Dr. Paget had opposed " direct representation,"-and I believed I was correct in stating, in the concludingparagraph of the letter, that he and his friends "hadretired from the executive of the Association because theywere opposed to the direct representation of the professionin the General Medical Council," without which the Asso-ciation had repeatedly declared that no measure of medicalreform would be esteemed satisfactory. The general secre-tary signed my letter for publication, thereby endorsingmy opinion, and Dr. Paget wrote to him complaining of the I,misrepresentation ; the general secretary replied that heand I were responsible for the letter. ’

The general secretary also forwarded me Dr. Paget’sletter, but I was at the time so overwhelmed with workthat I was utterly unable to reply to it, as well as to manyother letters, so speedily as I desired.In consequence the general secretary and I wrote inde-

pendent letters; his letters, as the published correspondenceappears to me to show, evinced the greatest anxiety to do all I

Dr. Paget required. I, on my part, accepted and admittedDr. Paget’s own statement of the reasons for resignation-namely, that the Association, by its vote at the Newcastlemeeting, approved of the conduct of the Direct Representa-tion Committee of the Association in not accepting theMedical Acts Amendment Bill of last session.

It is a matter of deep regret to me to find that Dr. Pagetand his colleagues should so misinterpret me, as I feelassured they must do, as to feel compelled to retire from anAssociation embracing more than 4000 members, on accountof any act of mine.

I am. Sir. vours. &c..

Chester, June 14th, 1871.

THE CONSTANT CURRENT IN THERAPEUTICS.

JULIUS ALTHAUS, M.D.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SiR,-So many inquiries have been addressed to me as to

my opinion on the controversy now carried on between Dr.Gull and Dr. Anstie concerning the therapeutical meritsof the constant current, that I shall feel obliged by your in-sertion of the following remarks.

I think-and I say so with all due deference to boththese eminent men-that Dr. Gull and Dr. Anstie haveboth erred, although each in a widely different manner.

Dr. Gull, whose mind is deeply imbued with Descartes’axiom, 11 two doubt everything," has, to my thinking, carriedhis scepticism in this instance beyond those limits whichwe, as medical practitioners, cannot overstep withoutmaking ourselves guilty of sins of omission against ourpatients. If mint-water is to be the last word of thera-peutics for rheumatic fever, then, indeed, Perkins’s metallictractors may be the last word for neuralgia. The only dis-advantage that I fear would arise from our thus relinquish-ing the use of really effective remedies in the treatment of

disease, is that such a proceeding must eventually forceour patients into the hands of the marauders constantlyhovering in the rear of the medical army, and who will notbe deterred "by the lack of a scientific basis" from "re-quisitioning " remedies which we may refuse to employ,because their value cannot always be scientifically explained.

Dr. Anstie has, in my opinion, erred by attaching toomuch importance to the dictum of even so eminent a leaderof the profession as Dr. Gull. If the constant current in

therapeutics can be put down by the authority of thePresident of the Clinical Society of London, then, I say,the sooner it goes the better. Truth, not authority, mustultimately prevail. Meanwhile, I heartily coincide withthe closing remark of Dr. Anstie’s last letter-namely, thatno one has any right to hold or express any opinion on thismatter who has not himself used the remedy in questionwith the necessary care and knowledge ; and I will onlyadd that those practitioners who, for some reason, or, as Ifear is too often the case, for no reason, voluntarily deprivethemselves of the help of such a powerful remedy as theconstant current, will, of necessity, be less successful intheir treatment of many forms of disease than they mightbe otherwise.

I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

Bryanston-street, Portman-square, .W., June 10th, 1871.

HOSPITAL ELECTIONS.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SiBj—Bef erring to the leading article on HospitalElections in THE LANCET of the 3rd inst., I thank you foryour notice of my letter to the local press of the 27th ult.,and for the generous reference you make thereto. I tho-

roughly agree, with you that a select mixed medical and layCommittee would be about as good a method of electing anofficer to a hospital as can be devised, with the proviso thatthe medical portion of it be elected from the consultingstaff, and not from the acting staff, for obvious reasons.This proviso may have reference more to a provincial thanto a London hospital election, as professional jealousies andinfluences are more likely to be brought into play in theformer than in the latter.There is one other observation I would, with your indulg-