§ Earl Stanhope, adverting to the Bill before the House to regulate the practice of Surgeons, observed upon its exceptionable tendency, and the clumsy manner in which it was drawn up. For instance, it contained a clause prohibiting male persons from practising as men-midwives, so that, observed the noble earl, women were not to be prevented from practising as 1134 men-midwives—[a laugh]. But this was not the only absurdity in this Bill, which was, in fact, altogether in such a state that it ought not to pass. This, however, was only one specimen of the crude bills, barrow-fulls of which were so often brought before the House, of late years, at the close of a session, in the sinister hope, no doubt, that they would be allowed to pass without observation.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that from the provisions of this Bill, which proposed a penalty of 30l. upon any one who practised as a surgeon without being admitted to the College of Surgeons, he very much feared that if it were passed in its present stale, there were many parts of the country in which the people would be without any medical assistance whatever.
The Earl of Liverpoolapprehended, from the construction of this Bill, that no private individual could administer any medical relief, or even draw teeth, or bleed in his own family, without being subject to the proposed penalty; therefore, he could not assent to the passing of the Bill in its present state; yet, from a consideration for the respectable body with whom it originated, he did not wish to propose its immediate rejection, but rather that it should be allowed to pass through a committee, and then let it stand over until the next session, in order to afford to its; authors an opportunity of re-examining its. provisions, and modifying its character.
The Bill was accordingly ordered to be committed.