name, the beadles, with admirable com..

posure, exclaimed, "What! are you a

member?" ’ Yes," I replied, " 1 passedin the year 1826." Dear me," again ex-claimed the beadles, why, several gentle-men have been inquiring if you were a

member, and I told them No. Dear me,

why didn’t you call and inform me of yourplace of residence 1 "

In consequence of the answer thus re-turned to inquirers by the aforesaid beadles,I have reason to believe 1 have sufferedmuch both in the estimation of the publicand of my professional brethren. Let thosegentlemen who intend visiting foreign landsin quest of fame or fortune remember this :in designating themselves members of theRoyal College of Surgeons of London, theymay be damned for life as liars and impos-tors in the opinion of kind, inquiring friends,by the ipse dixit" of the mighty beadlesof the Royal College of Surgeons.Oct. 5, 1832. ANTHROPOS.

THE LONDON DISPENSARIES.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Will you oblige me, and many ofyour readers, by informing us of the regu- Ilations of the different public dispensariesin London, as respects the appointment oftheir medical officers. I am aware thatsome require that the physicians shall bemembers of the College of Physicians here,and that the surgeons shall hold the diplomaof the Lincoln’s Inn corporation, and shallnot be engaged in the practice of pharmacyor midwifery. Such is the case with theSt. Marylebone Dispensary, whose health,from its own acknowledgment, appears tobe very rickettv and drooping; whereas inothers, I am told, a more liberal system oithings exists, and any respectable medicalman holding the diploma of physician or

of surgeon from an established college oruniversity, whether at home or abroad, ismade eligible. To you, as better acquaintedwith everything connected with the pro-fession, and to whom the members of it aremore indebted, than to any other person, Iapply for information, and solicit your earlyanswer, as to which are the exclusive, andwhich are the liberal, dispensaries esta-

blished in London. To enlarge upon theabsurdity of any restrictive or monopolisinglaws, is not my intention at present, andseems scarcelv necessary, now that a determined spirit of freedom and independence is abroad among the mass of genera]practitioners. The public, however, requireto be enlightened on the delusions whichar-e practiced on their judgments hy the

avarice, fraud, and ignorance. of the twoLondon colleges. We ask, would it everhave entered into the head of the governorsand subscribers to the medical institutionshere, to exclude from the charge of theircharities those whose characters might standhigh, both as to professional talents and

integrity, only because they could not dis-play the diplomas of Sir Henry Hulford, orof Sir William Blizard? Assuredly not;else why should they employ those verymen to prescribe for themselves and theirfamilies, if thfy deem them unworthy ofattending the patients of a dispensary’! I

anxiously hope that you will direct yourattention to the abuse now complained of,knowing as I do, that if you are once aroused,no impediments will prevent you from

bringing about a new order of things.I am, Sir, yours,

7th October, 1832. R. D. C. L.

SURGEONS IN GENERAL PRACTICE,AND PHYSICIANS.

To the Editryr p/’ THE LANCKT.SIR,—In perusing the address of the

"Medical Practitioners Society" of South-ward, inserted in vour 474th number, myattention was forcibly drawn to the follow-ing statement."The interferences of physicians and

consulting surgeons with the practice of

general practitioners, call for an immediateremedy. It has been declarl’d by a resolu-tion of the society, to be far from its objectto intrench upon the practice either of phy-sicians or of consulting surgeons, when con-fined to their respective departments, andconducted in a manner consistent with the

gentlemanly views of a liberal profession.In the profession of the law, counsel willnot take a brief without the intervention ofthe attorney."Two questions here suggest themselves.

1. What is the nature and amount of intr-ference hitherto and at present exercised hvthe physician (for to this point I shall coil-fine myself) in the practice of the generalpractitioner? What are the prfdse limitswithin which the practice of the physicianis to be confined, to meet the views of this- ociety, and upn which it is not their

object to intrench? ’1 he latter part of theextract may seem to imply, that a phy-sician should never see a patient withoutbeing called in by desire of the generalpractitioner." In the profession of the law, counsel

will not talce a brief without the interren-tion of the atterney." The analogy does

92

not hold good. The attorney is compelledto give counsel a brief; for the duty thecounsel has to perform is perfectly distinctfrom that of the attorney, and what thelatter is not authorised to undertake. No

attorney can plead the cause of a client inthe superior courts of law ; this must bedone by the party himself or by counsel.Here there is no rivalry, no competition.Is it so in the medical profession 1 A pa-tient can, if he choose, employ an apothe-cary during the most protracted and mostdangerous case, without calling in a phy-sician ; and he can, if he please, employa physician in the slightest ailment, with-out the intervention of the apothecary. Thepublic have their choice, and why shouldnot they be allowed freely to exercise it?If the acquirements and skill of the generalpractitioner be equal to, or, as you, Mr.Editor, often assert, far superior to those ofphysicians, what possible harm can he take ?Alav not the physician quietly avail himselfof the patronage of that small portion of thepublic, who are not yet convinced of thejustness of your views

October 5, 1832. MEDicus.

ST. BARTHOLOMEW’S HOSPITAL.

THE ANATOMY LECTURERS AND

DEMONSTRATORS.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.I ACKNOWLEDGE my obligations for yom

insertion of my last letter in THE LANCET.1 expect from your public spirit, unlimitedmean, of appealm; to the justice and policyof the governors of St. Bartholomew’s Hos-pital. THE LANCET, Sir, compelled thelate Mr. Abernethy to the tardy perform-ance of some acts of justice; it exposedthe nefarious job of the "bond;" it operatedon the self-respect of the governors, and

urged them to the performance of their

duty in a matter where private friendshipwould have suggested a very differentcourse. Having done all this, I despairnot of its availing me in endcavourinn toeffect change, which are no less prudentthan just. Permit me to address a fewwords

To the Governors of ST. BATHOLOMEW’SHOSPITAL.

GENTLEMEN,—You are the depositariesof a great and important trust ; 1 presumeyou all hold the duties sacred, believing thatIt is incumbent on you to perform themwith zeal and integrity, and that any actof omission is as culpable as one of com-mission; while, m withholding your aid for

the redress of abuses, you would be guiltyof as gross a dereliction of duty as if youwere detected in any act of fraud, pecula-tion, and corruption. I presume you areall aware, that the duties of a trustee aremore onerous than where we are responsibleonly to ourselves. Gentlemen, I presumeyou hold yourselves amenable to public opi-nion ; and that your good sense as well asyour sense of justice will prevent your dls-rfgarding this first appeal to both’these, onbehalf of the interests of the noble institu-tion over which you preside, and on the partof the interests and prospects of the pupilsof the school attached-I know not howwisely-to the hospital.Gentlemen, when the late Mr. Abemethvfancied that the professor’s chair was hisfee simple, his freehold, to be trucked for,sold, and bartered, you undeceived him,asserted your own independence, and theinterests of the charity, and without for-getting his high claims to your respect andconsideration, convinced him that the in-terests of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, theindependence of Its governors, and the

prosperity of its school, were not to be bar-tered for private advantage. I now call on

vou to aid me, one of your colleagues, inremedying a grievance, the longer conti-nuance of which will eventually injure thereputation, and impair the prosperity, ofthe medical school, over which I maintainwe have both the right and the power toexercise a salutary influence and control.

Mr. Stanley succeeded to the anatomicallectures, and if competent judges approvedthe appointment, I have- nothing, being alayman, to object to it. Essential to teach-

ing anatomy, is a demonstrator. Now

although the offices of lecturer and demon-strator are not (I am told) necessarily in-compatible, yet they have never been heldtogether, and by the same individual. Thesuccessful cultivation of anatomy, and thedue instruction of the pupils, depend moreupon the functior. of the demonstrator thanupon the lecturer. They are distinctoffices ; imply the performance of distinctduties; are charged for to the pupil se-parately ; and are not pretended to be com-bined. Why, then, does Mr. Stanley, thelecturer on anatomy, presume to receivethe emolument for both duties, charged forin equal proportions, and furnish demon-strations of less value than he receives

money four This I say he does ; for can itbe possible that the duties of demonstratorsare duly performed by men who know thatthey receive not a moiety of the value of.the material they furnish ; who are deprivedof the consequence and just considerationattached to their office ; and who, for per-.forming four-fifths of the labour, receiveone-third of the remuneration they in equity