Special report from the Select Committee on the Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3) Bill [Lords] : together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, and appendix.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on the Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3) Bill.
Date:
1879
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Special report from the Select Committee on the Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3) Bill [Lords] : together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, and appendix. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    24/456 (page 10)
    Acland Chairman—continued. f.r.s. different presidents from the beginning ?—The presidents have been Sir Benjamin Brodie, 87q G Joseph Henry Green, Dr. burrows, and Dr. y* Paget, of Cambridge. 119. I think by the Act of Parliament the resident may be a layman, but he never has een so, I suppose ?—There is no reason, except- ing the votes of the council, why the president should not be a layman. 120. I think by the Act of Parliament the several bodies may elect laymen ?—The universi- ties may. I was going to say that it is a remark- able thing, which is not generally known, that it is only the medical corporations that need send registered practitioners. The physicians and surgeons, and the apothecaries are obliged by the Act to elect registered practitioners. All the others, including the Crown, may elect if they please non-professional persons, and it rests with them to send eminent educational persons, or eminent scientific persons, and they do so accord- ingly. Professor Rolleston, sent by Oxford, is registered, but he is not a practitioner, but in practice. Dublin sent Professor Apjohn, who was not a practitioner. There is, in short, great latitude of choice. 121-2. Do you think that the council needs any alteration as to its working ? -— It would be difficult to say, I suppose, of any administrative body, that it would be impossible to improve it, and it would be a very useless observation to say that it might be improved without saying how it could be done, and certainly the history of the formation of the council is a curious and inter- esting one. For many years prior to 1858 public men had turned their attention to the subject of the construction of a Medical Council, and in a document which I have handed in to the Com- mittee, you will find at page 70 a list of several proposals which were made ; of course the council might be altered by having a larger number of persons, or it might be altered by having the same number of persons differently appointed, or it might be altered by having a smaller number of persons, and so on. 123. Taking the number, do you think that it would work better if it was either larger or smaller ? — As I said, I think it would be very rash to say that 20 would be better than 24, or that 30 would be either much better or much worse; but I was about to remark that Mr. Walpole and Mr. Cowper-Temple’s plan of constructing the council as they did, was extremely skilful, be- cause they took all the institutions which up to that time had raised British medicine and surgery to the high position which they hold in the world, and they thought that each of those bodies was entitled to combine to conduct the future medical education of Great Britain, adding a certain number of persons, six, to be named on behalf of the public by the Crown. I do not know whether they were supposed to have a different interest from the interest of the medical profes- sion ; I do not know whether it would have been better had there been four, or whether it would have been better if there had been eight Crown nominees. In two instances in Scotland, each university did not have a representative; and therefore the universities of Scotland might say, “ Why do not we have an additional representa- tive for each of us ? Why should only one be given to two great universities such as Aberdeen Chairman—continued. and Edinburgh ?” I do not see exactly why they should not have had one each, just in the same way that- Durham has, except to keep a certain proportion between the nationalities; nor do I see why the Crown should not have ap- pointed eight if it was thought better. If any- body asked me what experience I have had, I may say that I have never been absent one single day that the council has sat, except once, when I had to attend convocation at Oxford ; and if anybody were to ask me whether it would ma- terially alter the working of the council to reduce it to 20, or to increase it to 30,1 do not suppose it would; I think it is mainly a question of internal management of its duties if good men are sent in. 124. As regards the constitution, has it worked well upon the whole, that the Crown should appoint a certain proportion ?—Certainly; I do not doubt it; I feel that the whole subject, if I may speak quite frankly, is a public much more than a professional question; it is certainly one which does not specially concern the president of the council, or the council, because what we have to do, and what men like Brodie and Watson, and all such men have done, is to do their best to fulfil the intentions of the Legis- lature. They were appointed for a certain work, and if you can find other men to do it better, well and good; but it is hardly for us, I think, to consider that subject, except in so far as our experience goes. 125. It strikes me that it must be rather diffi- cult for the Crown to find eminent men who would not naturally have come in either from the universities or from one of the different corpo- rations ?—Practically that is so. The Crown nominees have always been eminent persons; I am very much afraid of occupying the time of the Committee unnecessarily, because every branch of the subject runs into many details, but I will just read the names of those who as a matter of fact have been appointed by the Crown ; and then the Committee will bear in mind that it is hardly conceivable that the great medical institutions in the country, as for in- stance. the College of Surgeons of England, with its traditions of Hunter, and its great prestige, should not have the opportunity of sending the best and most effective members ; they have, for instance, sent Arnot, Caesar Hawkins, and Paget; but the officers of the Crown can surely find some other eminent members of the College of Surgeons to send in. This is the list which the Crown, in fact, has sent for England: Sir James Clark, Dr. Baly, one of the most eminent young men of his time, Dr. William Sharpey, the great physi- ologist, Sir Charles Hastings, representing the provinces, Dr. Parkes, one of the first men of the day, William Lawrence, Richard Quain, the surgeon, Mr. Teale, Mr. Ruinsey, Sir William Gull, Mr, Simon ; and for Scotland, Sir Robert Christison, Dr. Begbie, whose death was a na- tional loss, and Lister; and for Ireland, William Stokes, as great a genius as Ireland ever pro- duced in his profession, and Alfred Hudson; those have all been the Crown nominees. 126. Do the Crown appoint their representa- tives for life or until resignation?—All those appointments are for five years, unless specified otherwise, Some of the bodies elect annually, but they generally elect for five years; the Crown appoints for five years. 127. With