The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-22 00:00:00

their
merits, yet it is a greater abuse to have what the
Legislature intended to be the very fountain of medical
education and honour polluted by a corrupt and cor-
rupting influence, which tends to poison the moral
health of that profession to which it ought to he the
source of strength, improvement, and invigoration.
If, for instance, a collegiate body that ought to
be the asylum of merit--the promoter of science—
the very heart and life of a liberal and enlightened
system of practice, should become little more than
a hotbed of favouritism—a close borough for fa-
voured connection or fortunate incapacity—if, by
some vice inherent in its very constitution, or from
some other cause, instead of affording protection
and encouragement to unpatronised talent, it is used as
a sort of turnpike trust upon the high road of the
profession to levy revenue and stop unfriended genius
on its way, it becomes not a public benefit but a public
obstacle to improvement. In every profession it is an
indisputable truth, that, in proportion as dunces and
incapubieg are fostered and encouraged, talent and
merit are repressed and proscribed. It is not the pro-
fession alone that suffers, it is the public, whose dearest
interests are thereby intrusted to incompetent persons,
who are falsely accredited to the world as the ablest
and best interpreters of a science which they have less
studied than the paltry and obsequious arts which su-
perior talent can never stoop to practise. Without
saying whether the College of Surgeons or the College
of Physicians do or do not come within the description
which we have given of collegiate bodies, created for
the promotion of science, which are either vicious
in their original constitution, or vitiated in their
practice, we will, at present, only observe that, in all
such institutions, the principle of 3ey-Zelection is the
root of abundant evil, No such institution, however
good in other respects, can long preserve its purity or
usefulness, in which the principle of self-election pre-
vails. As to the College of Surgeons, a great au-
thority in that profession attributes all its abuses to
that principle. We mean Surgeon Lawrence, one of
the most distinguished men in the profession, of which
he was some years ago a very zealous Reformer. In
proof of which we will now quote a passage or two
from a speech which he made on the subject, at a
public meeting in the Freemasons' Tavern, in the year
1826 :—" The cause of the grievances," says Mr.
Lawrence, " which we have to coinplain of seems to
me, gentlemen, clearly and directly traceable to the
originally defective constitution of the authority from
which they have proceeded ; self-elected and irrespon-
sible bodies have always been found most unsafe de-
positories of power. If, moreover, the members
hold their places for life, all the elements of
misgovernment are combined, and we may safely
anticipate that the public good will be sacrificed to
private interests. Under the present Constitution,
the Council have the power to fill up vacancies
in their own body, and are thus enabled to admit or
exclude particular descriptions of persons--to indulge
friendly or unfriendly feelings. These appointments,
in which not only the whole profession, but the public,
are interested, take place in secret conclave--thus
every facility is afforded for the exercise of favour or
prejudice, and all checks against abuse are entirely
neglected. A body thus constituted is particularly- un-
fit to preside over a liberal profession, and to exercise,
without control or appeal, acts of legislation directly
involving the pecuniary interests of themselves as well
as of the subject members. The ruling authority in
the surgical profession will not fulfil the ends of its in•
stitution, unless it possess the good opinion and confi-
dence of the body at large, and these they cannot have
unless they are nominated by the members. In any
new constitution, then, it will he necessary that the
general body should elect those who are to he at their
head, and I conceive further, that that appointment
should be limited for a time, and not for life." We
recommend these observations to the attention of Sir
Robert Peel, and shall take an early opportunity o:
returning to the subject.—Morning Herald.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

LEWES V. LEWES.

The argument in this case being concluded,
The LORD CHANCELLOR had entertained some doubts
on the matter in the course of the hearing ; but they were
now completely removed. By the will of the testator, a
sum of 3001. was appropriated to the education of the chil-
dren of his son, Thomas Lewes, and all the residue and
remainder of his property vested in trustees, to pay over
the income, from year to year, for the support and mainte-
nance of the said Thomas Lewes and his family during his
life ; and it was declared that the testator did this in order
to guard against the extravagance and improvidence of the
said Thomas Lewes. If the will had stopped there it could
not be a question that Thomas Lewes would have had it in
his power to assign his interest ; but there followed a pro-
viso by which Thomas Lewes was expressly enjoined from
doing anything to frustrate or impede the execution of the
trusts of the will. Reading the whole of the will, there-
fore, there seemed to be no doubt that the decision of the
Vice-Chancellor was right, and that the appeal must there-
fore be dismissed.
His LORDSHIP gave no costs.