Third report from the Select Committee on Medical Registration and Medical Law amendment : together with the minutes of evidence and appendix.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment.
Date:
1848
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Third report from the Select Committee on Medical Registration and Medical Law amendment : together with the 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.

    15/390 (page 11)
    ■* SELECT COMMITTEE ON MEDICAL REGISTRATION, &c. n regulated course for a general practitioner, and anything less than that would, in k my opinion, be defective. 1614. And the education required by the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow is less than that ?—It is. 1615. In the College of Physicians at Edinburgh, the titles are fellows and licentiates ?— Fellows and licentiates. 1616. In the College of Surgeons, what are they?—Fellows and licentiates. 1617. And in the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow, what are they ? — They take the name of members. 16)8. Fellows and members ?—No, they do not take the name of fellows at all ; I think it is members and licentiates, but I am not exactly sure. 1619. Do you happen to know, with reference to the history of the medical profession in the United Kingdom, to what extent a gentleman holding the degree of either of the Scotch universities, or a diploma from any of those colleges which you have referred to, was entitled to practise in England?—Until 1815, when the Apothecaries’ Act was obtained, an Edinburgh graduate, or a licentiate of the Edinburgh College of Surgeons, was allowed to practise in every part of England except London ; I mean a Scotch graduate, as a physician or a general practitioner ; and an Edinburgh licentiate of the College of Surgeons, as a surgeon or general practitioner. 1620. You say a graduate, do you mean to exclude a person who holds a license from the College of Physicians of Edinburgh ? —None could hold that license without being a graduate, as I have explained. 1621. That was before 1815?—Yes. 1622. London was the only exception to the right of those parties to practise over England ?—Yes. 1623. Do you know how London happened to be excepted ?—In consequence of the charter of the College of Physicians, it became necessary for a Scotch graduate to join that College as a licentiate, before he could settle in London. 1624. That College having exclusive privilege, as you understand, within the district of London, similar to the exclusive privileges held by other bodies in Scotland, though in London the privileges were enforced; whereas in Scotland they have not practically been enforced, except in the Glasgow district ?— Exactly. 1625. Sir H. Halford.] You mean as a general practitioner ?—No; I mean as a physician; he might establish himself as a general practitioner in London. 1626. The charter of the College of Physicians, as the Committee understand, did not preclude a privileged person in Scotland becoming a general practitioner in England?—No. 1627. Chairman.'] The Committee understand you, that before 1815, it was competent for any party to practise as a general practitioner, being a graduate in Scotland, or being a licentiate of the College of Surgeons in Edinburgh, in any part of England, even in London ?—Yes. 1628 But it was not competent for a graduate in Scotland to practise in London as a pure physician; as a physician, properly speaking? — No, not as a physician; he had no legal right. 1629. Mr. Walcley.] The practice was permitted, but it conferred no legal right whatever ?— lie had no legal right, and was not allowed. 1630. Chairman.] The Scotch graduate was not prevented from practising anywhere in England, or even in London, as a general practitioner?—Not as a general practitioner. 1631. But the Scotch graduate was prevented from practising as a physician within the privileged district of the College of Physicians of London ?—Yes. 1632. Did any alteration take place in 1815 ; and if so, what, in this state of things? — The Apothecaries’ Act passed in 1815, and this prevented any practitioner who had received his title to practise in Scotland, whatever that title might be, from practising as a general practitioner, that is to say, as an English apothecary in England and Wales. 1633. Then, was the operation of that Act to exclude all Scotch graduates and Scotch licentiates, of which you are speaking, from practising in England and Wales ?—The tendency of it was so ; and the actual fact in the end has been, that every Scotch graduate or Scotch licentiate of the College of Surgeons, 702 B2 joins Christison, Esq., M. D.