489

by such agents ? Truly, as I have heard the celebrated Dr.Haighton, and his justly esteemed successor, Dr. JamesBlundell, exclaim, "Meddlesome midwifery is a dangerousthing.Should the above be thought worthy of insertion in your

journal, I shall feel obliged by your admitting it, and remain,Sir, your obedient servant, ,

Worthing, Sussex, Sept. 1850. HENRY JOHN GORE.HENRY JOHN GORE.

THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND ASSURANCEOFFICES.

J. F. CLARKE.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—You will oblige me by the publication of the followingletter to the actuary of the Law Assurance Society. Theletter accompanied my answers to the usual queries respectingthe health and habits of a gentleman who has insured hislife in that Society. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Gerrard-street, Soho, Oct. 14, 1850. J. F. CLARKE.

23, Gerrard-street, Soho, Oct. 12, 1850.

SIR,—In returning to you the accompanying form respectingthe health and habits of my patient, Mr. G-, I think it myduty to inform you that he has offered me the usual fee forconsulting me on a professional subject. This, as a matter ofprinciple, I have declined to accept. I have done so, becauseI think that the Assurance Company is the party that mustderive any benefit (if benefit there be) from the informationwhich I forward to you. I must beg to say, with great re-spect to the most highly respectable and innuential gentle-men comprising the Board of Directors of the " Law Assu-

rance Society," that I am surprised that an opinion should berequested by them from a professional man, for which theyoffer no fee. I am the more surprised at the Law Societydoing this, when I recollect in what estimation a lawyer isheld who gives a gratuitous opinion. It has been my practiceamongst my patients to recommend such offices as do justiceto medical men, with regard to remuneration for professionaladvice. Once within the last twelve months, I have recom-mended a patient who intended to insure in the Law office, toanother and more liberal one. I trust that the time is not fardistant when the Law Society will see fit to add their office tothe list of those who regard the " private and confidential"opinion of a surgeon as one worthy of being paid for. I trustthat you will favour me by laying this letter before the

directors of the Law Assurance Society, and beg to remain,,

Your obedient servant,W. S. Downes, Esq. J. F. CLARKE.

THE COLLEGES AND THE UNIVERSITY OFLONDON.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,—I have read the communication from. Sir George

Grey, and the reply- of the Council of the College of Surgeons,with considerable interest and attention. In both of them

° allusions are made to some meditated or intended union be-tween,the Colleges and the University of London, couched invery doubtful and indefinite language. Do you think, Mr.Editor, that in case negotiations for the intended marriage areset on foot, the inclinations or wishes of the members of theCollege, on the one hand, or the graduates of thé Universityof London, on the other, will be consulted ? It happens thatthe graduates of the University of London are much in thesame position as the members of the College of Surgeons; bothare governed by irresponsible councils or senates, with thisdifference, however, that the Council of the College of Sur-geons is responsible to a certain extent to the elective bodyof fellows; whereas the Senate of the University of Londonis alone responsible to Sir George Grey. I repeat, that the

- senate of the University of London and the graduates of theUniversity of London form two separate bodies, connectedonly by a slip of printed paper, which is a certificate ratherthan a diploma. It is true that these bodies communicatewith each other, but their communications are not usually ofthe most agreeable character: the senate also condescendsto meet the graduates once a year, but the desires andinterests of the senate and graduates are antagonistic to eachother. This statement is capable of demonstration in a fewwords, by the simple fact, that during the twelve years thatthe’University has granted degrees, not one of the graduateshas been deemed worthy by the senate to fill any office in theUniversity, although many of them have held appointmentsas teachers in the medical colleges of the University. In

other words, the senate has deemed them capable of teaching,but incapable of examining. Which of these offices is themore difficult I leave you and your readers to determine.The constitution of the Colleges of Surgeons and of the Uni-

versity of London are of the same character-an irresponsiblecouncil and powerless members. In this respect the Uni-versity of London and the Universities of Oxford and Cam-bridge differ; in the former the senate is a close oligarchy,nominating its new members into itself; in the latter, thegraduates constitute the senate, and all questions of import-ance are referred to the general body. Who hears of theselatter universities sending to Edinburgh or any other universityfor their examiners and office-bearers? Is it true that noneamong the London graduates are qualified to fill such offices? 2If none are so qualified, ought not the senate to be ashamed ofregulations which admit men to the degrees who are not quali-fied in turn to examine for those degrees ? Is the examinationfor the M.D. degree of Edinburgh more stringent than thatof London? or does it happen that the government of theUniversity of London has fallen into the hands of a Scotchclique, who will admit any one to its offices rather than itsown graduates? Is it pretended by the governing powers of theUniversity that the graduates are too young for such offices ? Ifso, I can only say that one at the least of its examiners has sat dsa student on the same benches with myself; and I can assureyou that there is a fair sprinkling of grey on the heads of theexisting graduates. It may be alleged, in disparagement ofthese remarks, that they emanate from a disappointed candi-date. Were it so, the allegation would be of no importance,since the damning fact remains that no graduate of the Uni-versity of London has hitherto been deemed worthy to hold anyoffice in his own university, although several have offered them-selves as candidates! I do hope that some member of thesenate will condescend to answer the questions I have pro-posed above. I feel that satisfactory replies to them, if suchare producible, would be pleasing to the body of the graduates,and would rescue the senate from the dilemma of eitheradmitting that their examinations are unworthy of the credithitherto attached to them, or that the members of the senateare actuated by unworthy and despicable motives in theselection of the office-bearers of the University.

I shall reserve other observations on the conduct of thesenate in relation to the graduates for some future oppor-tunity, and in the mean time subscribe myself,London, Sept. 26, 1850. A SENIOR GRADUATE.

BREACH OF PROFESSIONAL ETIQUETTE.To the E, ditor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—It being at all- times desirable to uphold and assertthe etiquette of our profession, as, without the maintenanceof a proper degree of caution, with regard to interferencewith the practice of others, such interference is likely toclash unpleasantly with the feelings of all parties concerned,I beg to request the favour of your insertion of what I nowproceed to state.On the 22nd of September my attendance was required

upon a gentleman suffering under the simplest form of cere-bral congestion, for which the appropriate treatment (unne-cessary to particularize) was employed. When paying myusual visit, on the evening of the 23rd, I was somewhat asto-nished to find another medical practitioner by the bed-side, (noprevious intimation having been received by me,) who an-nounced himself as an " old friend of the family" &c. Itherefore offered no objection to hearing any suggestion hemight wish to offer, although the case was so simple, and itsmanagement so obvious, as hardly to admit the possibility ofany difference in opinion-nor, indeed, did any such arise.My treatment was consequently persevered in, without modi-fication in any respect, and my patient speedily became con-valescent, and able to resume his customary occupation. Thefriend of the family, however, calling again, in his medicalcapacity, during my absence, wrote a prescription for my pa-tient, (he being still under my care, exclusively,) and, as Iunderstood, recommended a regimen at variance with my in-structions on that head.The following correspondence, " short, sharp, and decisive,"

was the result:-29, Shaftesbury-crescent, Oct. 3, 1850.

SIR,—Upon visiting one of my patients yesterday, (Mr. -,)I could not but feel some surprise on being informed that you,in my absence, had volunteered a prescription, which was ofcourse handed over to me. I am therefore under the neces-sity of informing you, that your mode of procedure has, inthis instance, been both intrusive and unprofessional.

490

I have made known the circumstances of the case to severalof the leading practitioners of this neighbourhood, who fullyconcur with me in deeming your interference officious andunwarrantable. So long as I continue to be favoured withthe confidence of Mr. - and his family, I shall pursue theline of treatment most adapted to be serviceable, without re-ference to your views, or attention to your prescriptions.

I am, Sir, yours obediently,To Dr. Helsham. C. F. MACKIN.

To this I received the following pithy and satisfactory re-joinder, which I give literatim:-

16, Mile-end Road, Oct. 4,1s50.SIR,—I have received your silly and illmannered letter

which I have forwarded to Mr. - and refer you to him forany explanation you or your friends, may require.As far as I am concerned, you may all be DAMED together.

Yours &c.,To Mr. Mackin. - HELSHAM.

My answer, which, however, the doctor would not deign toread, is as follows:-

Shaftesbury-crescent, Oct. 5, 1850.Shaftesbnry-crescent, Oct. 5, 1850.

SIR,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your note, thestyle and tenour of which I am by no means surprised at.

I shall not enter further into correspondence with you.The entire matter shall be submitted to the profession,

through the medium of THE LANCET.I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

To Dr. Helsham. C. F. MACKIN.

Such, Mr. Editor, were the pungent communications betweenus. The question as to which of us may be right I leave toyour readers, and am, Sir, yours obediently,

October, is5o. C. F. MACKIN, M.R.C.S.L., M.D. Glasgow.

C. F. MACKIN,

— HELSHAM.

C. F. MACKIN, M.R.C.S.L., M.D. Glasgow.

Medical News.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.——The followinggentlemen, having undergone the necessary examinations forthe diploma, were admitted members of the college, at themeeting of the Court of Examiners, on the 18th inst. :-

]BOOTH, CHARLES, Stoney Middleton, Derby.BRETLINGHAM, CHARLES, Finchley-road, St. John’s-wood.FLEWITT, MOTTERAM WILLIAM, Birmingham.CORDON, CHARLES, Maccio, Brazils.HAIGH, THOMAS ALLEN, Honley, Huddersfield, Yorkshire.HORTON, RICHARD GEORGE, Leeds.Lows, THOMAS, Edgbaston, Warwickshire.WASHBOURN, THOMAS BuoAawarr, Gloucester.APOTHECARIES’ HALL.-Names of gentlemen who

passed their examination in the science and practice of medi-cine, and received certificates to practise, on

Thursday, Oct. 17, 1850.DUNN, GEORGE PEAL, Ledbury, Herefordshire. ,

GARMAN, HENRY VINCENT, Bow-road.HARTLEY, JosHPA, Malton, Yorkshire.HEWITT, WILLIAM, Reading, Berks.MOORE, CHARLES CAULFIELD, Brimpsfield, Glostershire.

BRITISH MEDICAL FUND.- We have felt muchpleasure in drawing the attention of our readers, on morethan one occasion, to the British Medical Fund, and while wehave been desirous, by every means in our power, to urgeits claims upon the consideration of the profession at large, weare led to believe our efforts have not been in vain. We arefavoured with the report of a meeting of the medical pro-fession in Brighton, which was held on Monday last, the 21stinst., and have much pleasure in laying before our readersthe following copy of a resolution then passed, especially aswe believe it to be an evidence of the opinion universallyentertained by the profession as a body, of this institution, andthat it is an indication of what may be expected from otherquarters. Resolved, " That this meeting approves of theprinciples of the British Medical Fund Society, and recom-mend it to the attention of the medical profession in Brighton :’MEETING AT LEEDS. - At a Meeting of the

Leeds members of the Medical Protection Office, London,held on the 21st of October, 1850,—Geo. Wilson, Esq., in thechair,-it was moved and seconded, and unanimously resolved,"That Mr. F. H. Breary be requested by the agent to furnish

the Leeds members with a full statement of the affairs- of theMedical Protection Office to the close of his management, andthat in the meantime no further accounts be supplied by theagent here, and that all moneys collected by him since the 14thof September on account of the Leeds members, be retained inhis hands. And that this resolution be sent for insertion inTHE LANCET, and the Medical Gazette." The meeting was thenadjourned until the accounts required be furnished.

SANITARY PROCEEDINGS AT HULL.—At a meetingof medical practitioners, resident in Hull, held on Saturday,the 19th inst., at the General Infirmary, it was unanimouslyresolved, in reply to a letter received from the mayor, on thesubject of cholera,--That this meeting, although fully cognizantof the prevalence of cholera in Hull, and deeply aware of thenecessity of carefully watching its progress, is not of opinionthat any necessity exists to adopt decisive measures on thesubject. It would, however, suggest to the Sculcoates’ Boardof Guardians the desirableness of imitating the Hull Board,in requesting their medical officers to attend to all cases ofemergency, without an order. According to the returns of £the superintendent registrars, it appears that forty-two fatalcases have occurred, since the 1st of September, in Hull andSculcoates, conjointly.THE PHILOSOPHY OF GHOSTS.—In the Introduc-

tory lecture to a course on this subject, delivered at Brightonby oureorrespondent,lflr.J. T. Levison, the lecturer pointed outa psychological inconsistency in one of the finest works ofShakspeare, which was this: " that, in Hamlet,’ threeeducated gentlemen (Marcellus, Bernardo, and Horatio), notonly see the ghost of the murdered king, but they all describe

, his costume and expression with the accuracy of portrait.painters. This anomaly, he contended, was at variance withall the histories of ghost-seeing, as he did not recollect thatever it had been reported that two persons saw the same vision atthe same time." In order to account for supposed apparitions,Mr. Levison remarked that the mysteriousness of deathpowerfully excited the sentiment of marvellousness inherent inthe mind.

In his second lecture, Mr. Levison treated of the duality ofthe brain, as explaining double consciousness, in which thetwo hemispheres were in different states of activity. Thus,in dreaming, when conversations seemed to the dreamer to becarried on, the hemispheres of the brain acted separately;and the same was the case in the conversations imagined bythe insane and by spectre-seers, the simultaneous action of thehemispheres being essential to healthy consciousness. Thewant of uniform action in the hemispheres of the brain may,however, often be observed, even in a sane state, when personswill write a letter, while also attending to conversation, orotherwise do " two things at a time."Mr. Levison announced that his first correct notions on the

philosophy of ghosts were acquired from a treatise by his friend,the late Dr. Alderson, of Hull, entitled an " Essay on Appari-tions," in which such visions are accounted for physiologically.Spectre-seeing being the result of the involuntary action ofthe perceptive faculties, ghosts were real objects to those whosuffered from diseased perceptions; but the spectral illusionsof the patients in delirium tremens, and other morbid states,vanish with restoration from a state of disease.[We shall be happy to consider the subject at much greater

length in reviewing the lectures of Mr. Levison, should theybe published.]RUMOURED POISONING OF ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY

CHILDREN.—The New York Herald gives the particulars ofa rumour of 130 children having been poisoned at a foundlingestablishment, kept at Morrisania, by Miss Mary Shortwell, aQuakeress; but, so far as the investigation had proceeded, thebodies of only eight children had been recovered; andalthough these had been clandestinely buried, the evidence sofar satisfied the jury on the inquest, that they returned a ver-dict that seven of the infants came by their deaths from dis-ease, and that the eighth died from some cause to them un-known.ATTEMPTED DARING ROBBERY BY THE AID OF

CHLOROFORM.—Both the Kendal Mercury and the CarlisleJournal contain an account of an attempt made, in Kendal,on Sunday week last, to rob an elderly clergyman, by the aidof chloroform. The clergyman, who was temporarily visitingthe town, had taken up his residence at an hotel, to whichalso the person charged with the nefarious act resorted, as issupposed, for its express purpose. The aged gentleman hadretired to bed early on the night of the 13th inst., and beingunable to lock his door, had secured himself against intrudersbut inefficiently; he was subsequently awakened by the attempt