First and second reports 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
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: First and second reports 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.
12/146 (page 8)
![G.J. Guthrie, Esq. 29. Chairman.] The persons not selected complained that they were not f. r. s. selected, and they and their friends thought that their merits were at least ' equal to the merits of those who were selected ?—Suppose two surgeons 29 February 1848. ijvjng jn the same town of equal merit, and one happens to be known to me, and the other happens to be known to no member of the Council, I propose that gentleman whom I know, and he is made a fellow ; but his opposite neigh- bour, who perhaps may be his rival in business, is not placed upon the list | of fellows, although he is quite as talented and as deserving a man, simply because he did not happen to come under my observation, or that of any other member of the Council; such a man may be probably half ruined by a circumstance like that; for the announcement of the College goes down, making it known that the Council having elected his rival on the ground of his superior merit, have left him out. It has had a great effect in some places upon the prospects and comforts and feelings of individuals. An instance of this kind occurred in the case of Mr. Bruce of Ripon ; he is a gentleman on half-pay of the army, a very talented and distinguished man, and he has been made mention of on several occasions in my works on account of his services; Mr. Bruce is very much hurt, of course, having been more than 30 years a member of the College of Surgeons, that he should be excluded. The Council could know nothing about the matter. The great error was, that the 300 persons to whom we were limited, could not include a great number of men of merit throughout the country, who were entitled to the distinction ; neither could the second list. What ought to have been done was, to have made a public announcement that it was intended to select from among the seniors of 20 years’ standing such men as we found it most advisable to place upon the list of fellows, or who were the most deserving of it. Mr. Bruce has applied to be made a fellow, but we cannot do it; we must bring him up, we must examine him, make him pay 10 guineas, and then he will be placed at the bottom of the list. There is a case of two gentlemen of the name of Hall; both of them are Members of the College, and surgeons in the army; in one of the lists given in by Sir James M‘Grigor, Mr. Hall was put down ; somebody made a mistake between Thomas and John Hall, and intending to send it to Thomas, we in fact sent the diploma to John; John having got the diploma stated that he was very much obliged to us, that it was quite an unex- pected honour, but that he would keep it; he was informed that we had made a mistake, and begged that he would send it back again, but he being the senior of the two said, “ l do not know why you should select my junior in preference to me, and as you have been so good as to forward the diploma to me, I shall keep it.” We were absolutely obliged to make the other Mr. Hall come before us, to examine him, and having examined him, to make him pay a fee of 10 guineas, and then we placed him at the bottom of the list; he is actually 138 below the place he ought to have stood in, had not a mistake been made, which could not be corrected. There is another point which is a very dis- agreeable one to mention ; it is with regard to some of the officers of the Guards ; they were displeased, because they thought I had done them an injustice, and in several points that injustice has been done; it has been said that Sir James M‘Grigor did not return the officers of the Guards as he ought to have done, [Pari. Paper 596, page 7,par. 3]. Sir James M‘Grigor, the head of the medical department of the army, can no more return the officers of the Guards than the Speaker of the House of Commons could return the officers of the House of Lords; they are not under his control; but I took care that those officers should return themselves; and on the day on which Sir James M‘Grigorgave in the return of 201 officers whom he wished to be placed upon the list of fellows, I induced the surgeon-majors of the Guards to give in a statement of their own claims ; yet on this paper it is said that Sir James M‘Grigor was to blame for not giving in a return of those officers, those officers having actually made their own return ; and that therefore the Guards were overlooked, because no return was given of them; in regard to the Ordnance, the Council made the two inspectorial officers, and no others, and the second on my written recom- mendation. 30. Chairman.] Does your present charter limit the number of fellows ?— No, it allows 11s to make as many fellows as we think just, who must, however, come up and be examined, and pay 10 guineas after such examination. 31. The](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b24906773_0014.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
