The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MORNING, MAY 8, 1845.

orders, simply on account of some omission of a'
solicitor or Parliamentary agent. But he did not
wish to throw the slightest reflection upon the
Standing Orders Committee, and he should reserve to
himself the line of conduct he might in future pursue,
and vote for the second reading or not.
Mr. DUNCOMBE conceived that the feeling in
Ireland, in reference to having railroads in that country,
had nothing whatever to do with this question. That
argument had never been used during the whole of the
discussion, except upon one occasion, by an Hon.
Member near him, who used it on the introduction of
the qnestion. He could not see how the public could
have any confidence in the proceedings of this
House, if upon one day they decide that a Bill
should not be proceeded with, and upon another decide
that a question should be referred to a Committee, to the
effect that an inquiry should be made to ascertain whe-
ther the decisions of this House were erroneous, for that
in reality was the question.—(Hear, hear.)
The question was then put, and the motion agreed to
without a division.
CORNWALL RAILWAY.
Sir CHARLES LEMON presented four petitions in
favour of the Cornwall Railway.
Mr. M. GIBSON proposed the second reading of the
Manchester Courts of Review Bill, which was agreed to.
Mr. GREENE presented 14 petitions against the
Edinburgh Northern Railway.
Sir J. TYRRELL moved that six petitions which he
had presented on a former occasion be referred to the
Select Committee.—Agreed to.
Mr. DUNDAS presented a petition against the Edin-
burgh:Northern Railway (as we understood ita prayer.)
Mr. B. BALDWIN presented a petition from Surrey,
against the London and Portsmouth Railway.

sermon on the Sunday previous to the day ordered for
execution. Acting on the authority he possessed, he
(Sir James Graham) had ordered a prison inspector to
proceedito Newgate and to inquire into the circumstances
connected with the last execution. The inspector had
received instructions to examine into the transactions
both of the Sunday and of the Monday morning. As
soon as he should have received that report he should
be prepared to lay it on the table, and to express his
opinion on the whole matter.
Alderman COPELAND was glad to hear the course
the Right Hon. Baronet intended pursuing, and fully ad-
mitted the necessity for an inquiry. A morbid appetite
was abroad on this subject. The curiosity of the public
upon occasions such as these exceeded anything the
House could conceive. This curiositypervaded all classes,
and the desire of persons, not only to get seats at the
trial, but to be present at the condemned sermon, was
beyond all conception. Having been the sitting magis-
trate at Guildhall on Easter Monday, cases
had come before him, that led him to the
conclusion that the time had arrived, when the
authorities ought to consider whether it was not ad-
visable to dispense with these public exhibitions. On
Easter Monday he sent some for trial, and convicted
three in a gang for picking pockets under the gallows,
and this had led him to the conclusion that it would
be better to adopt some means of putting an end to
these executions altogether.
Mr. BROTHERTON rose to express his concur-
rence in the remarks of the Hon. Alderman, but he
was called to order by the Speaker, who put the ques-
tion, that the returns be laid on the table, which was
agreed to.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE moved the substitution of
Lord Frederick Hallyburton and Mr. David Morris for
Mr. Patrick Stewart and Mr. Bickham Escott, on Select
Committee on Prisons (Sentland.)
Mr. PRINGLE opposed the motion, and said he
would divide the House.—(Great laughter.)
The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided
when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the motion
MR. MAZZINI.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that it would be recollected
that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State
for the Home Department had, upon the debate
with regard to the opening of letters in the Post-
office, made a charge of a very grave and heinous
character against Mr. Mazaini, which had never yet been
withdrawn. A charge of such a nature as that made
against Mr. Mazzini was one which, under no circum-
stances, could be justified, unless there was the strongest
grounds for believing it to be true. That charge was
aggravated, coming, as it did, from one in the position of
the Right Hon. Baronet, whose Parliamentary privi-
leges prevented Mr. Mazzini from taking those steps
which he could do if the charge had not been made by
a Member of that House within the walls of Parliament.
That charge was spread abroad next morning, not only
through the country, but through the world, stamped
with the authority of the Secretary of State. The Right
Hon. Baronet derived the ground of his charge from an
anonymous statement in a French newspaper, and he
promised to substantiate it by papers which he would de-
liver to Members of the House. The only papers delivered
were papers which he (Mr. Bouverie) held in his hand,
but they did not contain one iota of evidence to substan-
tiate the charge.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped
that the Right Hon. Baronet, reflecting upon the hor-
rible nature of the charge, would think that he ought
to withdraw it. He might mention that the French Go-
vernment communicated to a friend of his, a Member of
that House, that they carefully investigated the matter,
and that they found there was not one tilde of evidence
to support the charge.
Sir J. GRAHAM stated that the Hon. Gentleman
who had sat down gave him notice yesterday, by a note,
of his intention to put this question. If there had been
a House yesterday, it was his (Sir J. Graham's) inten-
tion to make voluntarily the statement to the House,
which it was now his duty to make. On Mon
day last the Honourable Member for Kilmar-
nock, and another Honourable Member, communicated
with him on the subject, and he stated to them what was
then strictly true, that he was not in a position to make
a statement satisfactory to them or to Mr. Mazzini. In
consequence of the question put to him by the Honour-
able Member for Bolton, he thought it his duty to insti-
tute inquiries through his Noble Friend the Foreign
Secretary in those quarters where he would be likely
to obtain the most correct information on the subject ;
and, till yesterday, the information which he had re-
ceived, so far from shaking his impressions, only tended
to confirm them. But, not satisfied with the question to
which the inquiries were directed, he was particularly
anxious that the judge who presided at the trial of Ribiero
and Caprioli, in 1833, and also the public prosecutor, should
be consulted, and at his request those persons were con-
sulted. He did not, till two o'clock yesterday, receive
an answer to the inquiries made, and if there had been
a House yesterday it was his intention voluntarily to
have made the statement ; it was now his duty to make
it, in answer to the:question:put to him. The Hon. Gen-
tleman referred to the statement which he (Sir James
Graham) made originally. He stated that the informa-
tion being derived from a newspaper, and not from an
official source, was not entitled to implicit confidence.
And he was not aware, till the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury afterwards stated it, that Mr. Mazzini had, in 1840,
brought an action against a newspaper for repeating a
statement which first appeared in the Moniteur. The
Hon. Gentleman said that in the papers which he pre-
sented to the House there was no recognition of the
statement which he quoted from the Moniteur. If
the Honourable Gentleman looked attentively at
the papers he would see a letter from Mr.
Foster, their agent at Turin, to the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, and that there was a distinct
recognition of the statement to which reference was
made. He was bound to state that the accounts he re-
ceived yesterday rested on the statements of the judge
who tried Ribiero, and of the public prosecutor, and
their answers to the inquiries made were full, explicit,
and direct; and they stated that no evidence was pro-
duced at the trial which inculpated Mr. Mazzini in the
least.—(Hear, hear.) Had lie known at the time he
made the original statement the fact that Mr. Mazzini
brought an action against a newspaper for repeating the
charge, and much more, if he had known what the im-
pression of the judge who tried Ribiero, and that of the
public prosecutor were, he would never have made the
statement he did.—(Hear, hear.) He now thought it
due to Mr. Mazzini to make the only and the best repa-
ration in his power—namely, that the retraction should
be as public as the accusation.—(Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he thought that no Member
had any right to press or wish another Member to make
an apology to another individual unless he was persuaded
that that individual deserved to have an apology or a re-
traction made to him. He thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman was right in abstaining from making an
apology till he made :himself acquainted with the facts.
But he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had reason
to complain of the individual who put the Moniteur
into his hands—(llear)—who must have known,that the
statement against Mr. Mazzini was fabricated and false,
at the time, for it was publicly known. It was the duty
of the person who gave the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Moniteur, to give him also the judement of the judge of
the Tribunal Correctionnel, pronounced on the 23d of
April,lB4l, which in itself was a refutation of the charge.
The retraction came late, but certainly the Right Hon.
Gentleman was right not to make it till he inquired into
it. Now that it was fully made, it would be satisfactory
to Mr. Mazzini, and the other exiles who were in the
country; and he (Mr. Duncombe) would say, if lie did
not believe Mr. Mazzini to have been innocent, he would
not have introduced his name in that House, because
he would then consider him not only to be unworthy the
consideration of that House, but unworthy of the friend-
ship of many high men in this country, wh ch it was his
happiness and his privilege to enjoy.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon. Gentleman
stated that the explanation came late. He would state
the facts to the House. He had a letter from Lord
Cowley, dated the 2d of May, enclosing the answers of
the Judge who tried the case and the Prucureur du Rol,
which were not received by Lord Cowley till the Ist of
May. He received a note from his Noble Friend the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated yesterday,
and stating " the enclosed papers were received yester-
day (on the sth of May) from Lord Cowley, and the
statements are of a different tendency from those pre-
viously given by the Prefect of Police and the Minister
of the Interior. He received the papers yesterday at
two o'clock, and he could only repeat his assurance that
if there had been a House yesterday he would have
made the statement he now made.—(Hear, hear)
Mr. DUNCOMBE did not mean to attribute any un-
necessary delay to the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear.)
SLAVE TRADE.
Lord PALMERS'rON said he rose for the purpose of
putting the questions, of which he had given notice, to
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. The first question he
wished to ask was founded on the 9th article of
the Treaty of Washington, dated August, 1842.
He wished also to know in reference to the 17th article
of the treaty of December 1840, for the suppression of
the slave trade, which was signed by the representatives
of England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, whether the
contracting parties had in pursuance of this article made
application to Belgium, Hanover, and Greece, to obtain
their exertions in favour of that treaty, which stated
that the parties to the treaty, namely, Great Britain and
America, would unite in all becoming representations
and remonstrances to Spain and Brazil, for the shutting
up of markets for the sale of slaves. He wished to
know whether, in pursuance of this article, the
Governments of the United States and Eng..
land had united in making those remonstrances ?
Sir R. PEEL said that with regard to the first ques-
tion, several communications took place between the
Government and the American Minister, Mr. Everett,
on the subject, and it was considered whether more ad-
vantage would be likely to accrue from joint representa•
dons or from separate representations, and they came to
the conclusion that it was not necessary to make joint
representations, and they considered that, under the 9th
article of the treaty, they might, if they so thought fir,
make separate representations, though the word
" unite " was certainly in the treaty. Representations
had been made both to Spain and Brazil, and he under-
stood that the Minister of the United States at Brazil
had shown himself desirous to put an end to the
trade, and had co-operated with them in throwing
difficulties in the way of the prosecution of the trade.
With regard to the second question, the Noble Lord had
correctly stated that, in 1841, a treaty was signed by
Great Britain to suppress the slave trade, Austria,
Prussia, and Russia agreeing to uphold the right of
search. France also signed that treaty, but clld not
ratianfyttyoifwt
f;asorbuisutittitihhaheteltodhtehyienrinvigreat Powers of Europe, not-
' after the refusal of France not-
withstanding the non-ratification by France, waived any
gleahettethobilyvreath7fym7
point
theedT to, and
treaty,and question,
wt ha
se
whether it was desirable that the communication con-
teaTl4ted 117 that tHanover, emu Gre. reaty should be made to Belginni,
eat. They had all combined against

80
22
-58

the slave-trade, although the refusal-of France to ratify
the treaty gave the power to the other three nations to
refuse adhering to it. He had every reason to believe
that no communication had been made to that effect to
the other three Powers.
Lord PALMERSTON said that as to the second
question with regard to the powers of the Government
of the United States, he presumed that there would be
no difficulty in obtaining diplomatic communication of
those remonstrances from the United States' Govern-
ment, and in having them laid before the House; and if
they were joint remonstrances, of course they would be
laid before the House; as they were represented to be
joint in spirit, he thought that no inconvenience could
arise from doing so.
WELSH MAIL.

Mr. HENRY F. BERKELEY wished to ask a ques-
tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He understood
that it was the intention of the Government to remove
the mail which passed through South Wales from Bris-
tol, and to direct it in some other line, and as he was of
opinion that it would have the effect of injuring Bristo!,
he wished to know whether it was true?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the state of the case was, Vita the mail for South
Wales passed through Bristol, the effect of which way
to retard the letters for South Wales for several hours;
and as it was the desire of the inhabitants of South
Wales that their letters should be delivered as soon as
possible, arrangements to that effect were in progress,
and would soon be finished. He wished to state, at the
same time, that Bristol would not suffer any inconveni
ence.

were the persons to whom was assigned the duty of
teaching the highest branches of their noble profession.
He conceived that a great evil would fall on the country
by the degradation of the surgeons in the metropolis and
the transformation of the College of Surgeons into an
Apothecaries' Hall. On the other hind, he would con-
fess that although he did not admit all the objec-
tions taken by the general practitioners to be well-
founded—although he thought that they were in some
respects exaggerated ; yet he did think that certain pre-
cautions which they desired ought to be taken. The
general practitioners stated that in order to exalt their
own station and their own power, the physicians and
surgeons had endeavoured to degrade the general
standard of the practitioners. On the whole, therefore,
he had come to the conclusion that it was expedient to
incorporate the general practitioners. He should pro-
pose that in future all students that should hereafter enter
the profession should undergo an examination at one
place only. To secure that object he proposed, in the
present Bill, to establish a College of Physicians, a
College of Surgeons, and a College of General Prac-
titioners. No student should pass through his examina-
tion for a general practitioner until he had attained the
age of twenty two The Bill, as it now stood,
made it twenty-one. He then prop: sed that the College
of Physicians and the College of Surgeons should
hare a joint board of examiners. This board he pro-
posed should consist of six members of the College of
Surgeons, and six of the College of Physicians. In con-
nexion with the Council of Health this board should
have the examination of students. He then proposed
that the College of General Practitioners should also
appoint another board to examine exclusively the candi-
dates wishing to act as general practitioners, With re
gard to physicians and surgeons, he proposed that the
age of the student to be examined should be twenty-six
years. He had new come. to this decision with the
Apothecaries' Company. In the most handsome manner
they had agreed to surrender all the power with
which they were invested under their Act. He
proposed that there should be three Colleges—the
College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons,
and the College of General Practitioners; and he in-
tended by the new Bill to transfer to the College of Go.
neral Practitioners all the privileges which were now en-
joyed by the Apotheeatiese Company; and he should do
away, at the same time, with the system of Ave years'
apprenticeship, which was sq very obnoxious on the for-
mer occasion, when he addressed the House ; he had not
attached much importance to the power and discretion
given to the Apothecaries' Company; but he had now
deemed it better to remove those privileges to the new
College of General Practitioners, and to give them a
place is the Council of Health. With respect to the per-
sons who were to sit on that Council, it had been pro-
posed to place the power of nominating them in the
hands of the Crown ; but he was not the person to ac-
cede to such a poposition but he had, by the Bill,
placed an election of these officers in the new constituents
which it created. Having elected the General Practi-
tioners into a college, he would propose to give them a
place at t Board of Health ; and this board he pro-
posed to make the examining board for all the candi-
dates for the different branches of the profession. He
proposed that the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of
the Universities of London should each have a place in
the Council of Health. It was necessary that the Uni-
versities of Oxford and Cambrige, which were them-
selves entitled to confer degrees, should enjoy an ex-
emption from the operation of this Bill to a
certain extent. He proposed that the power
of granting degrees, whick they now enjoyed,
should still be continued to them; but there was another
point which had to be considered. It was the privilege
enjoyed by the College of Physicians of preventing any
one practising in the metropolis, or seven miles from it,
without their consent. He thought this was a hardship
from which graduates of the two universities ought to be
relieved, and he should propose, therefore, by this mea-
sure, to exempt their graduates from the operation of this
rule, and to give to every one who had passed an exami-
nation, and possessed a diploma, the right to practice in
any part of the United Kingdom. After examination by
the assessors, of whom deputies from the universities were
to form two, they intended to h eve only one portal
to the professior, and whether a student wished
to go to the practice of a physician, a surgeon,
or a general practitioner, he must pass the
examination of this Council of Health. Some difficulty
might arise from the import of the term, in clause 23, of
" inceptors of medicine. He would explain that this
was simply a term of noviciate. He saw the Hon. Mem-
ber for Edinburgh cheering on his notice of the means
by which his general practitioner was to be introduced to
practice. He should say, in reply to that cheer, that the
licentiates of the Scottish Universities had claims which
it would be unjust to overlook. He thought that licen-
tiates of the Scottish Universities were entitled to the
same advantages, and he should extend to them the same
advantages as those enjoyed by students in the United
Kingdom. Having passed a double examination in
Scotland, all that would be required of them here would be
to present their certificates; to the Council of Health,
who would have the general power of granting licences
to practice in all parts of the United Kingdom. He
saw from the observation of the Hon. Member for
Kendal (Mr. Warburton) that he apprehended some
difficulties in ascertaining the qualifications of those
who came from distant parts of the country, but he
conceived that there would be no difficulty in sending
down assessors to the different schools and colleges in
order to ascertain the mode of examination, and the ac-
quirements of the students. Since the 23d clause was
originally framed, his views had been altered, but he
saw no reason to restrict the practice of the profession
to those who had obtained the licence or the
degree of the collegiate authorities in London. He
proposed to destroy the distinction at preemie possessed
by the College of Physicians, of practising infsea urbe,
and ultra urban, and to give to every person the right of
practising in all parts of the United Kingdom. He
proposed to lay upon the table of the House, immedi
ately after the recess, or perhaps before the recess, the
charter of the College of Physicians, the College of
Surgeons, and of the several colleges in Scotland and
Ireland entitled to grant degrees, and to show at the same
time the different powers granted under the new charter.
For the prospective advantages these charters would fully
provide, but he admitted there was a difficulty in its
retrospective effect. Some persons in the profession pos-
sessed peculiar rights of practising in certain places. He
could not preserve that right intact, but he would give
them an advantage, by allowing them to register their
exclusive rights during their own lives, and thus bind, as
far as the circumstances of the case would allow, the
preservation of private benefit with the promotion of the
public advantage. This was especially the case with re-
spect to the privilege of practising within seven miles of
the metropolis. But he hoped by the plan which he
adopted to give the advantage of practising, without too
greatly interfering with the rights at present
existing. There was, perhaps, a little ambiguity with
respect to the assumption of titles. He proposed, by the
present Act of Parliament, to render the simulation of
titles punishable as a misdemeanour. Some doubt had
existed respecting tee title of Doctor, which had been
taken up by many of the general practitioners. He
proposed to limit the right to this title to those who had
derived it from the College of Physicians. He thought
that the Bill might lie on the table till the middle of
June, and as he hoped to have it in a perfect shape
shortly after the recess, and after all the information
had reached him which he could obtain, he
should deem it his duty to advise her Majesty
to grant new charters, both to the College
of Physicians and the College of Surgeons. By the
middle of June, the whole case would be before the
public. He had had interviews with the heads of the
profession, both physicians, surgeons, and general prac-
titioners, and he was happy to say that the whole body
of the profession approved of the measure before the
House. Of course, in so great a number of persons,
there were many dissentients, but the bulk of the pro-
fession approved of the measure.
In reply to Mr. GISBORNE,
Sir J. GRAHAM stated that he proposed that the
Council of Health should consist of forty-eight members
of all branches of the profession, of fifteen years stand-
ing, and that they should be elected by a constituency
of ten years standing, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of State.
In reply to Col. T. WOOD,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated that he proposed
that every novice should be examined by the Board, in
the first instance, for the degree of a general practitioner,
and then they might proceed to the degree of surgeon or
physician ; and that in the case of graduates from the
colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, the examiners should
sit as assessors at the Beard of the Council of Health.
In reply to Captain RODS,
Sir J. GRAHAM stated that of course the Council
of Health would be governed by bye-laws, which would
be subject to the approval of the Seeretary of State.
Mr. HAWES said that he saw no reason why the
Secretary of State should despair of reconciling the dif-
ferences between the general practitioners and the Col-
lege of Surgeons. He feared that this measure would
prove very distasteful to the whole of the profession,
both in London and the country. There was a great
anomaly in the 26th clause, and it was impossible to
reconcile the 26. h with the 22d and 23d.
(Hear, hear.) The great object of the profession
was to obtain an equality of qualification. What
he particularly wanted was, that the teachers of pupils
should in no case be examiners for degrees, and he
thought that the Board of Health should institute some
means of examination which would make them
acquainted with the several schools, and the numbers
and intentions of the pupils. Some plan might be
adopted for obviating the probability of such an evil as
that to which he had alluded.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he fully agreed with his
Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth that the altera-
tions introduced by this measure in the old law would
be viewed by the country with the greatest possible dis
satisfaction. He (Mr. Wakley) was greatly dissatisfied
at the changes which the Right Hon. Baronet proposed.
He had hoped that those changes would have removed
the discontent which at present prevailed so generally
throughout the profession. The Right Hon. Baronet
meant to transfer the powers given by the Act of
George the Third to the new corporation. No
person was to be permitted to practice who had
not been examined before the new corporation.
Sir J. GR,A HA VI explained. The Hon. Member for
Finsbury had misunderstood him.
Mr. WAKLEY—Then, if that were the case, of what
possible use was the new corporation? Did the Right
lion. Baronet mean this Bill as alleviating the evils
under which general practitioners laboured? He (Mr.
Wakley) thought it rather degraded them. The Right
Hon. Baronet virtually affirmed that the general prac-
titioners were utterly unworthy of sitting at the boards
of examination. Did he think that this measure would
give general satisfaction to those practitioners? He
(Mr. Wakley) was sure that it would not. The fact
was that the rifling authorities in the Council of Surgeons
seemed to have sufficient influence with the Right Hon.
Baronet to make him forget the claims of others. lie
thought that 10,000 men, the members of the medical
profession, members of the College of Surgeons, were

obliged to submit to great indignities, and this Bill of
the Right Hon, Baronet's was hut a continuation of the
system. It seemed a point with the Right Hon. Baronet
to gratify those who had retained the authority for a
long period, and who, according to general opinion, had
abused that authority. He repeated, it seemed to him
that the Right Hon Baronet wished to prolong that
authority in their hands, in spite of the many petitions
which had been presented years before praying for c reform
in the medical officers. In the year 1826 large medical
meetings were held in London, and resolutions were pas ed
condemnatory of the council of the College of Sur-
geons. From that time medical associations had been
in existence, and from time to time the question ;ma
been discussed ; but to the amazement of the members
of the College of Surgeons, they found that in 1843 a
new charter was granted to the council, containing pro-
visions of a most odious and obnoxious nature. The
conduct of the members of' this council was open to re
preach, and they wero rewarded. How ? By the
gift of a now charter—he would venture to say clan-
destinely obtained--a charter that might please the
clique that formed the Council, but was received with
the utmost displrasure by the 13,000 members of the
college. On that very day he had had a communication
from Shropshire, containing a memorial which had been
addressed to the Council, after having received the sanc-
tion of the majority of practitioners in all the counties of
England. A meeting was held in that county on the 3d
of April, 1845, and a resolution moved by MP. 'Brooks,
and seconded by Mr. Cartwright, was the effect that
the meeting felt themselves 'aggrieved by the ex-
clusive character of tb-, charur
ree, granted to the
College of Surgeo
as they thought themselves justly
entitled to a full participation in all the privileges which
that charter denied them. But there were thirteen
thousand members allowed to complain fruitlessly.
Did the Right Hon. Baronet believe that the surgeons of
this country would remain passive under this injury. He
(Mr. Wakley) was much deceived if the surgeons of the
country would not exhibit their feelings on this subject.
If the Right Hon. Baronet would refer to the evidence
taken before a Committee in 1834, he would find that
such men as Sir Astley Cooper, Sir Benjamin Brodie,
and Mr. Lawrence, all agreed that surgeons and general
medical practitioners should be examined before a board
of competent individuals. He was not aware that the
medical practitioners of England had forfeited the good
character which they had formerly maintained. Yet,
why were they not allowed to participate in the privi-
leges of their own college? He allowed them to exer-
cise the elective franchise in the new corporation, then
why not in the College of Surgeons? But the council
themselves were not satisfied with the charter for last
year they petitioned to be heard at the bar of the
House against it. The measure went upon the principle
that the professional talent in the country was not equal
to that in town. He (Mr. Wakley) had no doubt that in
the country there were men equal in talent to Sir Ben-
jamin Brodie, but who had not had opportunities of dis-
playing it. The practitioner in the country was obliged
to trust to his own resources, for, in any case of diffi-
culty, he could not as in town send for Sir Benjamin
Brodie, or some gentleman equally celebrated, to take
the responsibility of the case off his shoulders. The
efforts of the country practitioners had never been
surpassed, considering their opportunities, by any of the
achievements of the profession in the metropolis. Those
men were not merely competent surgeons, but they were
physicians. They were quite equal in point of talent
and knowledge to those who practised in London.—
(Hear, hear.) According to the statement of the Right
Hon. Baronet himself, he was going to create a new
Apothecaries'-hall.—( Hear.) He believed that if the
Right Hon. Gentleman would give the franchise to the
general body, all the wrong that existed would
be rectified. It was most unjust to disfranchise
12,000 members of the College of Surgeons for the mis-
conduct of a self-elected council of twenty-six persons.
If the members of the College were restored to their
just rights, there would be no occasion for the institution
of another body.--(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Would
the Right Hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into the
present condition of the College of Surgeons? He did
not think that the council, after their recent letter, de-
served so much patronage as the Right Hon. Gentleman
lavished upon them.—(Hear, hear.) Would the Right
Hon. Baronet lay the letter upon the table?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the letter had been al-
ready printed.
Mr. WAKLEY had not seen it amongst the papers of'
the House. There was a grave misstatement in the
very preamble of the Bill, which stated that the Bill was
introduced in consequence of a memorial from the Col-
lege of Surgeons ; whereas, in point of fact, the College
did not memorialise at all.
Sir J. GRAHAM—The memorial had the Feel of
the corporation.
Mr. WAKLEY—But the memorial was written by
the Council alone, which did not, in any respect, repre-
sent the profession.
Mr. WARBURTON was happy to find so much
unanimity in the House on the subject of medical re-
form. He understood the object of the Bill to be to
create a standard of uniformity in medical education.—
(Hear, hear.) He bad read that morning a statement
from the professors of King's College and University
College on this subject, and he agreed with them
that residence ought to be made a condition
in qualifying for a degree. But in London the oppor-
tunities were so great for pursuing medical studies, that
the enforcement of residence need not extend over so
long a period as in Edinburgh.
An Hort. MEMBER here rose and moved that the
House be counted.
The galleries were accordingly cleared of strangers,
but there being above 40 Members present, the debate
was continued.
On our return to the gallery,
Mr. WARBURTON was remarking that the provi-
sions in clause 33, in his opinion, took away an efficient
security which existed at present, for graduates under
going a proper examination at Edinburgh ; and he was,
therefore, bound to object to it. The Bill appeared to him
to provide that graduates and licentiates qualifying at
Edinburgh should be entitled to the same privileges and
rights possessed by those who qualified in England. If
this were so, and he believed the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite admitted it was so, he thought the licentiates
and graduates qualifying in England, or who had reached
the requisite standard in England, should reciprocally be
allowed to hold and to enjoy situations of patronage and
privilege in Scotland and Ireland. He thought there
was a bad system prevailing at present, and as the Bill
was calculated to improve it, he hoped the Right Hon.
Baronet would be enabled to carry it to-night.
Mr. ACKLAND thought the Hon. Member for Fine-
bury had just delivered a speech, which he had carefully
prepared for the previous evening, but still it appeared
to him not likely to produce the beneficial effect
which the Hon. Member anticipated. The Hon. Mem-
ber said the Bill drew a distinction between the arts of
medicine and surgery, but he (Mr. Ackland) was not
prepared to admit the Hon. Gentleman's proposition.
Both acts were of equal importance to the country, and
the Bill in his opinion was brought forward solely with a
view of placing them upon a more settled and more
firm footing. He believed there was much more confi-
dence placed in the College of Surgeons than would be
inferred from the speech of the Honourable Member for
Finsbury; he made this statement from considerable
knowledge on the subjee. The Honourable Member
had not told them what was the course that ought to be
pursued, nor did he believe he could.
Mr. H. BERKELEY said the reason he had moved
that the House should be counted, was in order
to show the disgust he felt at the course pursued by
the Government in stopping last night the motion of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, by making no House.
—(Hear, hear.) He contended that that motion ought
to have been made and disposed of before the measure
now before the House was brought under discussion,
The Hon. Member for Finsbury had intended to bring
before the House the conduct of the Council of the Col-
lege of Surgeons, which had had disgusted every one.
They had selected men without talent.' 'lnstal:lees had
come before him that were perfectly disgraceful.
He could point out many instances, whose the omission
of persons of distinction from being selected fellows
must bring upon those persons a stigma and a slur.
They all knew Mr. Dermot, many of whose pupils had
risen to the greatest height in the profession. This gen-
tleman was omitted, and the world would generally con-
sider that to be a slur. When Gentlemen said that it
was not a slur, he really did not un lerstand what they
meant. He would call upon the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex, and also the Member for Finsbury, to corrobo-
rate the fact, that London gentlemen had performed
as many brilliant operations as their Brodies. This gen-
tleman was Mr. Frogly, who was as well known to the
physicians of London to be as distinguished a physician,
as any physician could be. He knew it could not be a
slur upon such men as Mr. Dermot or Mr. Frogly, but
he could not defend the omission, when he found men,
not possessing half their knowledge, raised to the dis-
tinction of fellows.
Colonel T. WOOD thought that the speeches that
were made were sufficient to satisfy them that they were
bound to endeavour, as far as possible, to open the pro-
fession widely to merit, and to avoid giving such an ab-
surd incorporation. Were they to have power to grant
degrees or to have second examinations ? The only
effect of a separate incorporation would be to create a
party in the profession, instead of waiting the general
body. If they had a separate incorporation a portion of
the profession would look with dislike upon the system,
and if they did not acquire the same power, they would
endeavour to obtain the power of giving degrees. This
exclusive mode would give great offence. While Mr.
Frogly was omitted, the men of less knowledge in
their profession were admitted. It could not
be that such men would suffer that injustice.
There was superiority given according to the date of the
entrance of their diploma or fellowship, which practice
would be very injurious to the medical officers of the
naval or military department. They were necessarily
absent for many years, and anything that would affect
these men would be deeply felt for there was go class of
men that conferred greater benefits on science than mili-
tary medical men. He had two instances where, in
the present arrangement, two surgeons who were edu-
cated at Westminster School, had practised in the first
hospitals in London, and had distinguished themselves
at Hyderabad, would, after they had returned find them-
selves excluded from fellowships, and young men, who
were infants when they were in practice, admitted and
placed above them. General discontent would arise from
the unnecessary exclusion of such men. The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman, however, refused all inquiry. He
(Colonel Wood) presented a petition from Dr. Guthrie,
who thought that an inquiry ought to take place ;
and if it were instituted, the House could
put the College in a position which would be
satisfactory to the whole profession. He beheld witq
dismay the proposition of the Government. He thought
it would create a division in the profession, which
would be exceedingly injurious in a scientific point of
view.
Alter a few words from Captain RODS, which were
quite inaudible, from the lowness of his tone of voice,
The House went into Committee on the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM, who was very indistinctly heard