767

Dr. HALDA.NE seconded the amendment.Sir W. GULL disapproved of the amendment. The ex-

aminers at Guy’s considered that the publication of the"pluck" list was most demoralising to the students, as itinduced them simply to cram to their utmost. ’

Sir D. CORRIGAN said no good could result from theamendment, as students frequently attended several schoolsbefore their final examination. With regard to the motion,was it possible to suppose that the Treasury would permitthe illegal expenditure of so much money as the visitationsof all the schools would cost ? The idea that the visitorsshould investigate the merits of the teachers was simplyridiculous. He had himself been a lecturer, and nothingwould have aroused his indignation more than for a memberof the Council to enter his room and sit down to criticisethe way in which he taught.Mr. MACNAMARA said the College of Surgeons, Ireland,

never consented to receive certificates from a school untilthey had ascertained what were the capabilities for in-struction there. When he first began lecturing he had togive a probationary course of lectures before he was put onthe list. The University of Dublin adopted a similar pre-caution. He knew of only one advantage which wouldresult from the proposed visitations, and that was that if avisitor attended a course regularly he would probably goaway with more knowledge than he ever had before.(Laughter.)Sir JAMES PAGET said he had carefully studied the lists offailures and successes at the College of Surgeons, andnothing could be more absolutely uninstructive. There weresome schools which were notoriously good, and others whichwere notoriously bad; but the numbers of rejections wereabout equal, for at the bad schools the grinder intervenedbetween the teaching and the examination.The amendment was negatived, only three members voting

for it.Sir JAMES PAGET, speaking in support of Dr. Humphry’s

motion, said the objections which had been advanced againstit lay just as strongly against the visitation of examinations ;but in the latter case they had been practically found to beunfounded. Mr. Simon was right as to the matter and lawthat it belonged to licensing bodies to ascertain whetherthey recognised rightly or not; but the difficulties in theway of the licensing bodies were not less than those in theway of the Council.

Sir W. GULL said that the duty of the Council was not toascertain where a man had acquired his knowledge ; butwhat knowledge he had acquired, and they should thereforeconfine their attention to the examinations.On the motion of Mr. Lister the debate was adjourned.

SATURDAY, MAY 19TH.The Council was occupied for some time in discussing a

question that was raised in reference to the Minutes. Thesehad contained a full account of the remarks of the Pre-sident with reference to the deputation to the Lord Pre-sident ; and Mr. Simon moved that they should also containa record of the fact, stated by himself, that no medicalfunctionary of the Government was present at the im-portant interview in question. Dr. Wood and othermembers objected to such additional record as being con-trary to the standing orders of the Council ; and the Pre-sident gave efect to the objection, and declined to put themotion. Ultimately, at the request of several members,Mr. Simon withdrew his motion on the understanding thatthe President would add to his printed remarks the namesof the persons who alone were present with the Lord Pre-sident-viz., Lord Sandon and Mr. Peel, the clerk of theCouncil.The Council then went into committee and took up the

adjourned consideration of Dr. Humphry’s motion withregard to the visitation of medical schools.Mr. LISTER said it had been assumed that the visitation

of the schools involved the visitation of the teachers and aconsideration of the efficiency of the mode of instruction,but, on the other hand, it had been said by the seconder ofthe motion that such an idea must be regarded as out of thequestion; the proposal, therefore, was simply that theCouncil should institute a visitation of the schools with re-ference to the efficiency of their means of instruction-hos-pital opportunities, dissecting-rooms, laboratories, and the

like. That undoubtedly was a thing that could be done atvery little expense. A single day would suffice for such anexamination, so that the argument as to expense fell to theground. He did not believe that the legality of the expen-diture would be questioned any more than that of the ex-penditure for the Council’s lunch.

Dr. ROLLESTON said no doubt some good would arise fromthe proposed scheme, but the question for the Council toconsider was whether it would not be more than counter-balanced by the evil. He could not separate the personnelfrom the mat6riel. It was impossible to visit the schoolwithout visiting the teacher, and it would be lowering to theteacher’s dignity to be interfered with when he was enrapport with his pupils. There was a danger of sowing dis-trust between them by such a visitation. As to the mereinspection of the material it was perfectly useless; what theCouncil wanted to know was whether the material had beenutilised, and that it ascertained by examinations. Peopleshould be allowed to get their knowledge ns they pleased,and he should be sorry to see any further limitations pro-posed. He agreed with the statement of Mr. Lowe, that inteaching there should be competition, with as few restric-tions as possible, and in examination unification; and hefeared that the proposed step would check spontaneity andindividual enterprise.

Dr. HUMPHRY said it was admitted on all hands that thevisitation of the schools would be a good thing, the objec-

! tions being to the practical working of the scheme. As tolegality, if the Council acted strictly within the letter of the

Medical Act its work would be very light. It was con-i stantly going beyond its strict powers. It was not contem-

plated, however, that the visitation should take place inopposition to the wishes of the schools, but he was certainthat no school in the empire would refuse the visitation.The Council could do what they liked with their money, andunless the funds were employed, instead of lying idle, thepublic might ask what they were doing. There could be nopossible objection to the money being used in the legitimatework of promoting education. The Council had visited atleast forty-five out of the fifty examinations of the licensingbodies, and each examination required at least two days, sothat nearly a hundred days had been occupied in the work.In visiting the examinations in Scotland several journeyswere required, but the schools there could be visited in onejourney, so that the travelling expenses would not be soheavy. No one had thought of the visitor listening to eachindividual lecturer, or sowing dissension between him andhis pupils. All that was wanted was to ascertain thegeneral apparatus and plan of the school. On the wholehe thought that far greater good would be done by visitingthe schools than by visiting the examinations, for theformer were the sources and fountains of knowledge, and itwas of the highest importance to see that they were clearand good.Mr. SIMON said he had thought of moving an amendment

to the motion, but he would content himself with giving anegative vote. The fundamental principle of good govern-ment was to avoid the division of responsibility ; and if themotion were carried it would create a division of responsi-bility in an important function. He contended that thosewho recognised were the persons to visit. The Council wasentitled to ask the licensing bodies under what conditionsthey recognised the schools; and if there was reason to

suppose that recognition was afforded on insufficient grounds,then it might be the duty of the Council, not as the ordinarybut as an extraordinary authority, to superinspect. In suchcases, and such cases alone, it might possibly be the dutyof the Council to visit the schools. Just as in sanitary ad-ministration the Government did not viait nuisancea, butvisited the local authorities whose duty it was to look afterthe nuisances.The motion was then put and negatived, the numbers

being-for 4 ; against 17.Dr. HUMPHRY moved the confirmation by the Council of

the resolutions passed in committee.Mr. MACNAMARA said that the resolutions ought to be

’ formally brought up and entered on the programme before, they were submitted for confirmation, so that the matteri might be re-argued if necessary.

Dr. WOOD protested against such a waste of time, and. said that the confirmation was a mere formal matter.

Some discussion ensued on this point, in the course of

768

which Dr. PYLE referred to the hardship which the three-fold examination would inflict upon his pupils in the north,who did not go to Durban for examination, but to Londonor Edinburgh, three separate journeys being required forthe purpose. The resolutions were duly confirmed.The Council then considered two repoi ts of the Committee

on Recommendations, one presented last year, and theother during the present session.

Dr. WOOD moved the adoption of the first recommenda-tion — " That no person be allowed to register as a medicalstudent unless he shall have previously passed a preliminaryexamination in the subjects of general education as herein-after provided."

Dr. HUMPHRY seconded the motion, which was agreed to.The following recommendation was also adopted:—" That

it be delegated to the Executive Committee to prepareannually, and lay before the Council for recognition, a listof examining bodies whose examinations fulfil the con-

ditions of the Medical Council as regards general education."Dr. WOOD moved, and Dr. HUMPHRY seconded, the

adoption of the following recommendation : 4‘ That for thepresent, testimonials of efficiency granted by educationalbodies, according to the subjoined list, be accepted; theCouncil reserving the right to add to or take from the list."

Dr. SMITH then moved as an amendment, " That thenineteen colonial and foreign universities and colleges,’ ofwhich the examinations as regards preliminary educationare recognised by the General Medical Council be struckout of the list of examining bodies for preliminary educa-tion." The Council, he said, had nd’ means of exercisingsupervision over the examinations of those bodies, and hecontended that on that ground those examinations shouldnot be accepted.

Sir W. GuLL said that the motion was quite at variancewith what the Council had already resolved with regard tocolonial degrees. The Government had just been told thatthe Council was willing to have a colonial and a foreign listof bodies whose licentiates should be registered, and now itwas proposed to reject even their preliminary education.

Dr. WOOD opposed the motion, believing that some of thecolonial examinations were as good as the Council coulddesire. It would, he thought, be a very harsh proceeding todisfranchise the colonial bodies after a recognition of somany years.The amendment was put and rejected, and the motion was

carried.Mr. SIMON drew attention to the list of examining bodies

whose examinations fulfil the conditions of the MedicalCouncil as regards preliminary education, and proposed thatthe examiners for the Civil Service should be added to "theexaminers for commissions in the military and navalservices of the United Kingdom."After some conversation, the motion was agreed to, and it

was resolved that the group in question should be desig-nated "the examiners for commissions and appointments inHer Majesty’s service, military, naval, and civil (certificateto include all the subjects required by the General MedicalCouncil)."The following correspondence between the Royal College

of Surgeons, Ireland, and Trinity College, Dublin, was laidbefore the Council, having been transmitted by the formerbody :-

" Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland.T)nh)in MOt"An lRt.l1 I.Q’717

Reverend and dear Sir,-I have it in direction from thePresident and Council of this College to draw, through you,as senior lecturer, the attention of the Board of TrinityCollege to the following facts :-A Mr. X. presented himselfas a candidate to pass the preliminary examinations con-ducted in this College upon the following dates :-20th ofOctober, 1875, 19th of April, 1876, 19th of July, 1876, and18th of October, 1876; upon all of which occasions he wasrejected. In the month of November, 1876, through meansof a private entrance examination, and upon payment of afee of fifteen pounds, he was matriculated as a junior fresh-man of Trinity College, and thereby, in accordance with theexisting arrangements of the General Medical Council, sofar as preliminary education and examination are concerned,qualified to enter the medical profession." The President and Council of this College desire to

direct the attention of the Board of Trinity College to thedifficulties thus thrown in their way, of securing that which

they look upon as a matter of primary importance-the en.forcement of a good standard of preliminary education onthe part of students seeking their licence.

(Signed) tc J. STAXNUs HuGHES,Secretar3 of Council.

" To the Rev. J. H. Jellett, Senior Fellow and Senior Lecturer,Trinity College, Dublin."

’

" Trinity College, Dublin.Dear Sir,-I have looked into the details of tha case of

Mr. X., and find that the marks which he received in Greekand Latin, Algebra, and English composition, would nothave justified me in rejecting him at an examination whichis only intended to ascertain whether the candidate pos-sesses sufficient knowledge to enable him to take advantageof the instruction given here. An examination having sucha purpose is never a severe examination, nor ought it to beregarded as indicating the amount of general knowledge re-quired for a learned profession. I have to observe that wedo not regard this examination as a sufficient test of thegeneral knowledge required of those who seek our Licencein Surgery. On the contrary, we require of candidatesseeking that licence that they should complete a two years’course in Arts. (Signed) " doxrr H. JELLETT,

" J. Stannus Hughes, Esq., M.D. Senior Lecturer."P.S. I should add that I laid your letter before the

Board, and write by their direction."" Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland,

Dublin, April 5th, 1877."Dear Sir,-I am directed to inform you that, at a meet.

ing of the President and Council held this day, the follow-ing resolution was passed by them :—’ That this Council,having taken into consideration the letter of their Secre-tary, addressed by their order to the Senior Lecturerof Trinity College, Dublin, bearing date March 16th,1877, and the reply thereto (undated) of the Senior Lec.turer, hereby adopt the following ordinance :-That, for thefuture, no Certificate of Preliminary Education emanatingfrom Trinity College, Dublin-unless it gues to prove thatits presenter is of Junior Sophister standing-shall be ac-cepted by the Inspecting Committee as an equivalent to thePreliminary Arts Examination of this College.’

(Signed) "J. STANN us HUGHES,"To the Rev. J. H. Jellett, T.C.D." Secretary of Council.Dr. APJOHN, referring to the correspondence, said that

the " public entrance examination " of Trinity College was

a very high one, and the most successful candidates receivedexhibitions. There was also a "private examination," notof so high a character, the nature of which had been suffi-ciently explained by the Senior Lecturer.

Dr. WOOD moved that under the head "Dublin," in thelist of bodies whose examinations are accepted for thewords "entrance examination" be substituted publicentrance examination."

Dr. APJOHN, in seconding the motion, said that the privateexamination was a very old institution, dating from the daysof Elizabeth. No medical degree was given by the Collegeexcept to those who had completed the whole curriculum inarts.

Sir D. CORRIGAN said there was another entrance withoutany examination whatever, and only requiring the paymentof a fee of 5s.At this point the further consideration of the motion was

postponed, and the Council adjourned.

MONDAY MAY 21ST.

The Council entered upon the adjourned consideration ofDr. Wood’s motion with reference to " entrance examina-tions" of Trinity College, Dublin.

Sir D. CORRIGAN said, that while the entrance examina-tion of Trinity College appeared on the face of it to be acomplete one, it was admitted by Mr. Jellett that it If oughtnot to be regarded as indicating the amount of generalknowledge required by a learned profession." As to the" public entrance examination," there was no such thingrecognised by the statutes of the colleges, and no certificate,therefore, could be issued for it. Another mode of enteringwas by matriculation, for which only a fee of 5s. was paid,without any examination whatever. He thought that theuniversity had followed a very unworthy course in regardto the licence. He had formerly, when referring to thatlicence, called the proceedings of the Medical Council a