The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-29 00:00:00

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.

We directed the attention of our readers last
week to a debate in the House of Commons on
the subject of the Royal College of Surgeons in
London, and we then particularized the principal
grounds of complaint contained in the petition
to the House, signed by a large number of mem-
bers of the College. This body derives its pre-
sent name and powers from a charter granted in
1800 ; in which, with incautious liberality, Royal
favour conferred the dangerous gift of absolute
power, not only unchecked by the slightest re-
sponsibility, but, as it were, carefully guarded by
self-election and tenure of office for life. The
College were further authorized, under this char-
ter, to levy from the members considerable sums
without being obliged to render to any body the
smallest account of their expenditure. Such is
the corrupting influence of power on the human
heart, that a wise and good man would pro-
bably hesitate to accept the tempting offer ; but
this kind of diffidence has seldom been shewn by
bodies of men, and seems so foreign to the feel-
ings of this surgical college, that they have not
only maintained all their ancient pretensions, but
have enlarged the number of recent additions, of
great consequence, which have ultimately roused
a formidable spirit ofopposition, and thus brought
the matter under the consideration of Parliament.
Not only the surgeons of London, but those of
Winchester, Bristol, Bath, Somersetshire, Leeds,
and other parts of England, have addressed their
complaints to this high tribunal. The alterations
made by the College, since the London petition
was agreed on, prove that several of the com-
plaints then brought forward were well founded ;
while the statements of their advocate, Mr. Peel,
deprive them of all merit in these changes, by
sheaving that they were made in consequence of
his suggestions. Of the recent oppressive regu-
lations, two are yet unrepealed—viz. that by
which candidates for examination are compelled
to attend an hospital in London, Dublin, Edin-
burgh, Glasgow, or Aberdeen ; and the other,
which obliges them to bring certificates of attend-
ance on winter courses of lectures, thus render-
ing summer studies insufficient. The former
enactment is insulting to the surgeons of all the
provincial hospitals in England, clearly implying
that they are incapable of teaching their profes-
, • •

might lean; surgery at those institutions with
less expence and trouble than in London. It is
detrimental to the public, because the large hos-
pitals or infirmaries of Bath, Bristol, Exeter,
Birmingham, Leeds, &c. &c., afford much ampler
means of surgical study than such small establish-
ments as the Middlesex, Westminster, and St.
George's Hospitals in London. When we con-
sider how directly this regulation tends to aug-
ment the fees received by the surgeons of Lon-
don hospitals, and further, that the body who
made it consisted, with one or two exceptions
only, of such surgeons, we hope that the College
had some other good reasons to give for it, and
that it will condescend to favour the public with
those reasons. This learned body may at the
same time explain how it happens that surgical
knowledge is rendered of less value by being ac-
quired in the summer. We have returned to
this subject, not viewing it as a dispute between
the petitioners and the council of the College,
but as a matter of public importance, since every
individual iii the community is personally inte-
rested in the efficiency and respectability of the
surgical profession.—Times.