MEDICAL REFORM. (Hansard, 5 February 1841)

§ Mr. Hawes
rose to move for leave to introduce a bill to amend the laws relating to the Medical Profession. He felt justified in asking the House to entertain such a measure as this, from having been a member of the medical committee, which sat nearly six years ago, and from having given more or less attention to the subject from that time. The bill sought to obtain three principal objects—a representative body for the general government of the profession, uniformity of medical education, and a system of registration. There were many details which he declined to enter into, inasmuch as many opportunities would be afforded to consider them, and he was aware that to some of them many members entertained objections. He would, however, say, that any amendments not materially affecting these principal objects, sanctioned as they were by many very eminent medical authorities, he should be most ready to carefully and candidly consider. As he had reason to hope; that he should be permitted to introduce the bill, he would now simply move for leave, and reserve any further observations for the second reading.

§ Mr. Fox Maule
did not intend to oppose the motion. He thought, that some reform with respect to the laws relating to the medical profession in this country, was certainly desirable; and he believed, that in stating that opinion he expressed the feeling of the three great medical bodies in the country—the College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and the Company of Apothecaries.

§ Mr. Wakley
said, that if the hon. Gentlemen who had last addressed the House were only prepared to support such a measure of medical reform as would have the sanction of the three bodies he alluded to, he would not give satisfaction to the profession or the public. The fact was, those bodies had given to the public the greatest possible amount of dissatisfaction, and it was from that dissatisfaction that the desire for a medical reform which so generally prevailed had arisen.

§ Mr. Warburton
concurred in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down. He thought, that a reform in the three great bodies themselves, and their statutes would be desirable. He would not now go into details, but he hoped his hon. Friend would be more successful in pleasing the profession with his 362 bill than he (Mr. Warburton) had been with the one which he had introduced at the close of last Session. He felt bound to state, that he should feel it his duty to oppose any bill which sought by coercion to put down irregular practitioners quite as strenuously as he had opposed the Copyright Bill. He would never consent to any provisions authorizing Corporations to drag an irregular practitioner before a single magistrate with a view of putting him down. That was not the method by which irregular practice was to be prevented. The principle had been tried over and over again, and had failed, and he should oppose any bill embodying such a principle.

§ Lord John Russell
said, his hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, had been misunderstood. He had not said, that the Government would not agree to any measure of reform, that did not meet with the sanction of the three medical corporations. What he had stated was, that the corporations themselves acknowledged that some medical reform was necessary. He would not now give any opinion on the general subject, but would content himself by saying, that he thought it desirable that some more effectual method should be taken to ascertain the qualifications of medical practitioners, than was taken at present.

§ Mr. Halford
challenged the hon. Member for Finsbury to prove any charge of corruption against the medical bodies; and he should like to know to which of them the hon. Member alluded in bringing forward his charge, and when the corruption had taken place.

§ Sir R. Inglis
said, the hon. Member for Finsbury had accused the medical corporation of mismanagement and corruption. The question of mismanagement was one that might be fairly discussed, but he should as soon think of charging the noble Lord opposite with corruption as the College of Physicians. He had sat on the Medical Committee, and as far as he recollected no charge of corruption had been brought forward, certainly none had been substantiated.

§ Mr. Hume
said, the fault was not in the men, but in the system. Medical reform was a great national object, and the question ought to be taken up by the Government.

§ Mr. Wakley
explained, that he had not meant to attribute corruption to any indi- 363 vidual. He did not mean to say, that any individual had been dipping his hands into the public purse. What he did mean by charging the medical corporation with corruption was this—he meant to say, and he now did distinctly charge them, that in exercising the authority conferred upon them by Acts of Parliament, and by charters, they had legislated dishonestly—that is, that they had legislated for their own benefit, and not for the good of the profession and the public. If any doubt existed upon the mind of the hon. Baronet, he would hold himself responsible when the bill was read a second time, or when he brought in his bill, which he hoped shortly to be enabled to do—to make good his charge.