The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,_TITTYRODAY EVICNING,-

then stated the various legal operations under' which the
ditties of the profession were now carried on. The
object of the present Bill, however, was to amend
many of the provisions of the present imperfect law.
To put down quackery was hopeless but he thought en-
couragt,ment ought to be given to the clever man. He
proposed no restriction to private practice.—(Hear.)
lEs principle was this, that none should be
eligible to till medical or surgical offices except
those who were declared to be so by compe-
tent authority. He proposed by this Bill to repeal
all acts and charters which imposed restrictions on the
medical profession. The most important feature
of the Bill was the establishment of a Council
of health in the metropolis in direct connection with the
executive Government. The composition of the Council
of Health he proposed to be this:—The Regius Professor
of Medicine in Oxford, the Regius Professors of Physic in
Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin; one phy-
sician and surgeon, chosen by the College of Physicians
in England, and one physician in Scotland and Ire-
land. Then, in addition to this, six persons were to be
appointed by her Majesty, with the advice of her Privy
Council, and of those six one was to be a physi-
cian of the English rural districts, and one a
surgeon. One physician and one surgeon were to retire
annually, but he proposed that they should be eligible
for re-election, with the conFent of the Crown. He
then proposed that the Council should have a secretary in
London. and also in Scotland and Ireland. He then
proposed to have a register kept of all the phy
sicians and surgeons ; that the present bodies should
have power of granting licenses; but it should be at the
option of the Council of Health whether they would
register them or not, and every person that was
not registered could not hold any public situation.
He also proposed that all persons that were registered
should be exempted from attending juries and other
things to which they were at present liable. To those
who were now practising he proposed to give twelve
months, to apply to be registered. He proposed to im-
pose a penalty of 201. on those who practised in any
public office without registering. He proposed that no
person but those who were registered, or who had
practised before the passing of this Act, should be en-
titled to recover at law for any charges for attendance
or medicine. By this means registration would be the
means of showing who were competent practitioners,
and who were not. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded
by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. MACAULEY seconded the motion. To the ge-
neral principles on which the measure was founded he
felt bound to give his approbation. He believed that
the measure would give the greatest satisfaction.
Mr. WARBURTON approved of the principle of the
measure though be would not pledge himself to its
details.

Sir J. GRAHAM, in answer to a question from Mr.
Gaily Knight, said that he proposed to repeal the Apo-
thecaries Act altogether, and to deprive them entirely
as a body from granting licenses to practice, but he in-
tended that they should be associated with the College
of Physicians in doing so.

Mr: G. KNIGHT thought the medical profession
would not like very much the despotic character of the
Council that was proposed by the present Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY was sure that the present Bill would
not be satisfactory to the medical profession. He be-
lieved that the Right lion. Baronet had a desire to put
the medical profession on a better footing, but he had
been wilfully earwigged and deceived in the present
case.—(Hear, hear.) It was perfectly impossible that
the Right Hon. Baronet could ever carry this Bill. He
should feel it his duty to use every form which
the House allowed him, to prevent the measure
from becoming law. He trusted the Right Honour-
able Gentleman would reconsider the question, and not
be led away by the advice that had been given him in
the Home-office.

Mr. HAWES supported the Bill, believing it would
place the medical profession on a better footing. He
thought that the importance of the measure could not
be overrated.

After a few observations from Sir J. GRAHAM,
leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM postponed until to-morrow his
motion for leave to bring in a Bill relative to the law of
settlement in England and Wales.

required, than upon anything that could be_ done by
a Foreign Government. At the present moment he
could assure his Noble Friend that the Finance Minister
of Spain was a man more likely to be influenced by
large, liberal, and just views of' what was done
to the honour and interests of his country than
any person who had fill: d that situation fur some
years past, and for that reason, he did look with more
confidence than he otherwise should do to any represen-
tins that might be made by her Majesty's Government.

1 he amendment was negatived without a division.
Lord TEYNHAM proposed a clause to the effect that
where a married pauper went to a distant part of the
country to obtain work, it might be lawful .for the board
of guardians to give relief to his family during his
absence. He thought it but fair that while a
poor man did all that lay in his power to obtain
work rather than go into the workhouse that his family
should get relief while he was away for this loudable
object. He did not know on what grounds the clause
could be opposed.
Lord WHAT NCLIFFE opposed the clause. If a
man was honest and trustworthy he would have no diffi-
culty in getting work in his own parish.
The clause was negatived without a division, and
the Bill passed.

DUCIIY OF CORNWALL A SSESSIONABLE
MANORS BILL.
Lord WHARNECLIFFE moved the third reading of
;his Bill.

Lord COTTENHAM objected to the Bill, because the
effect of it was to give up all the mines in the manors
which had not been worked, whilst it provided no
equivalent.

[LEFT SITTING.]

lIOUSE OF COMMONS.

The House met this day at Three o'Clock.
Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from Leeds,
very numerously and respectably signed, stating that
Christianity and civilisation were introduced into Ota-
heite by English missionaries, and praying the House
to adopt measures to prevent French aggression there.
Mr. B. COCHRANE presented a petition from Lord
Dundonald, stating that he had a few pars ago disco-
vered a method for assailing and destroying hostile fleets,
and praying that if any premium were allowed for the
best method of effecting that result he might be allowed
to compete for it.
Mr. WYSE presented petitions from various places
in Ireland, praying for an inquiry into the State trials.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice that he would, next ses-
sion, move for an inqiiiry. into the Colonial accounts,
with a view of making an improvement in them.
LORD ELIOT AND THE PROTESTANT
CLERGY.

Mr. SHEIL said he would take that opportunity of
correcting a mis-statement which he had fallen into the
other night in speaking upon the motion made by his
Hon. Friend, with regard to the Education Board in
Ireland. He had stated that the Noble Lord, the Secre-
tary for Ireland, had a few years ago imputed the con-
duct of the Protestant clergy in reference to the system
of national education to factious motives. On looking
to the report of the Noble Lord's speech in the various
newspapers,
,he found that he was incorrect. He
thought it right, of his own accord, to correct the
error he had fallen into, and he felt much pleasure in
making this reparation to the Noble Lord for the error,
which he regretted he had made.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord ELIOT thanked the Right Hon. Gentleman for
the explanation he had given. He would take that op-
portunity of reading to the House a letter which he had
received in reference to an individual whose conduct was
canvassed in the same debate. [The Noble Lord
then read the letter, which stated that the writer
saw with surprise, in the Morning Chronicle, the report
of a speech made by Mr. M. J. O'Connell, relative to the
Bishop of Cashel, who was stated to have told a Protes-
tant gentleman not to employ Protestants.] Such a state-
ment was wholly without foundation.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL.
Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT moved that the Lords'
amendments to the Merchant Seamen's Bill be agreed to.
Admiral DUNDAS was opposed to the Bill alto-
gether. It was a most unfair thing to press forward a
measure of this nature at this period of the session, when
the seaman had had no opportunity of expressing their
opinions on the subject. They would, in the course of
next session, have the table covered with petitions pray-
ing for a repeal of the measure.
Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT said that the Bill had
been well considered, and so far from the m rchants or
seamen being displeased with the measure, he had re-
ceived several letters expressing their approval of it, and
thanking the Government for having introduced it.
Captain PECHELL, although he admitted that much
misapprehension existed regarding this measure, thought
it wits most unreasonable to press it forward at the pre-
sent time. It was impossible to discuss it properly, or
to ascertain the opinions of seamen and shipowners
respecting it. It was very well for Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite to say that the interests of landlords and that of
agricultural labourers were identical—that fallacy had
been pretty well exposed by his Hon. Friend below him;
but the agricultural labourers were now beginning to be
awake to their own interests, and to discover that their
interests were concerned in having bread cheap.—(Hear,
hear.) So the seamen were well aware that their in-
terests were not identical with the interests of the ship-
owners. The House of Lords, by one of their amend-
ments, had reduced the amount of remuneration W be
awarded to seamen for loss of their provisions from one
shilling to eightpence, thus depriving the seamen of
fourpence. This he apprehended was interfering with
a money clause, and was an amendment which the Lords
had no right to introduce. He should wish the Speaker
to settle that point. The hasty manner in which
this measure was pressed forward was calculated
to excite suspicions that there was some object in view,
which the Government was afraid should come to the
knowledge of the seamen. Meetings had been held on
the subject of the seamen at Newcastle, at Liverpool,
and at Bristol, and he protested against the Bill being
pressed forward in this manner.
On the question that the Lords' amendments be agreed
to being.put,
Captain PECHELL said—No, I cannot agree to the
eightpence ; but, the Hon. and Gallant Officer standing
alone in his opposition, the amendments were agreed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
Mr. R. YORKE wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government if it was the in-
tention of the Government to bring in any measure for
the reform of the ecclesiastical courts during the next
session.

Sir R. PEEL said that considering the little encourage-
ment that had been given to any Government during
the last ten years to legislate upon the subject, he must
decline answering the question.—(A laugh.)
NE W SPAPER STAMPS.
Mr. WYSE, seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in his place, wished to ask him if it was his intention to
consent to a return being made of the number of stamps
issued to different newspapers, in continuation of former
returns?

Tho CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER had re-
ceived different complaints from parties connected
with newspapers on the subject, and they strongly.
represented to him that the publication of
the returns of the number of stamps issued
to each newspaper was most unjust to news-
papers not completely established. It was not his
intention, therefore, to consent to the return of the
number of stamps issued to each individual newspaper.
The total number of stamps issued would of course be
returned as usual.

Dr. BOWRING agreed that the question was worthy
of serious consideration, and he would bring forward the
whole subject early next session.
Mr. WAKLEY thought that if any order existed on
the subject it ought to be rescinded. These returns
opened a door to the perpetration of gross frauds. He
had himself taken two stamped publications to the Stamp-
office, stamped with some stamp issued in London on the
same day, but the publications differed in size and the
matter contained in them was different. He had
asked the Solicitor of the Stamp-office if those
two publications were to be considered as one,and the
Solicitor had told him that, in the eye of the law they
were considered as one publication. Nov the stamps
for those two publications had been put forth to the
world as one, and thus a gross fraud had been committed
on the public, and on the advertisers. He hoped the re-
turn would never again be made.
Mr. WYSE brought up the report of the Committee
appointed to draw up the reasons for the Commons dis-
agreeing to the Lords' Amendments in the Arts Union
Bill.