FIRST DAY.-THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1874.-(Continued.) THE next business proceeded with was the appointment of the Business and Finance Committees.

The REGISTRAR then read the report of the Executive Committee as to the new premises for the Medical Council, and on the motion of Dr. Storrar the report was ordered to be received and entered on the minutes.

Sir WILLIAM GULL thought there should be some record of the thanks of the Council to Dr. Quain for the care and ability with which he had carried out the negotiations.

After a few words from Dr. SHARPEY, who seconded the resolution, it was carried unanimously.

Dr. QUAIN said no work had ever given him greater satisfacfion. He had always felt that a Council which had such very important duties to perform, and which did those duties so well to the public and to the profession, was deserving of a better place. He regretted that it was in such an unfinished state.

Dr. BENNETT was very much impressed with the obligations they were under to the members of the Office of Works, who had been not only energetic and efficient, but also personally courteous and kind. He had been told by house agents that their premises were worth £600 a year, and therefore it was evident they were receiving considerable assistance from the Government.

Dr. STORRAR Moved-" That the General Council approve the arrangements recommended by the Executive Committee for the apportionment of payment by the Branch Council of the rent, taxes, and expenses of offices, etc."

The resolution, having been seconded by Dr. PYLE, was carried.

Dr. PAGET at this moment entered the room, and was informed of the resolution that had been passed. He said he scarcely knew how to thank the Council. He had, he confessed, some time ago, imagined that to be elected President by his colleagues, who had known him for so many years, was the highest kind of honour a man could have. Knowing, as he did, how to appreciate the honour, the members of the Council would not mistake him when he said he could not hold it long. It would be a pleasure to him, and perhaps it would be convenient to the Council, that he should hold it for the greater part of the session, but he must then resign and leave them to choose another President.

The REGISTRAR read a letter from the Queen's University in Ireland, applying to the Council to register in the Medical Register diplomas for midwifery. Counsel's opinion was taken, to the following effect:-"We are clearly of opinion that the Medical Council cannot register diplomas in midwifery."

Dr. QUAIN moved, and Sir WILLIAM GULL seconded, that the opinion of counsel be read and inserted on the minutes, which was carried.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD moved--" That the Reports of the Visitations of Examinations be received and appended to the minutes of the present session of the Council."

Dr. STORRAR doubted whether it was desirable to make public all the details of the visitations. The reports were in a confidential form, and he did not think it an advisable step for the Council to display before the public reports that might possibly be calculated to give pain to certain bodies that had been the subject of visitation. The system of visitation examinations was one of the most important functions which the Council could exercise; at the same time, its advantages would depend very much upon the spirit with which the visitations were carried out, and if it should be thought that there was a disposition to find fault they would fail in achieving the advantages which they hoped to derive from these inspections. He would suggest that instead of referring the reports to the Committee they should be sent confidentially to the several bodies to which the reports refer, and whose attention should be invited to them.

Dr. PARKES seconded the resolution. It seemed to him that the reports must be communicated to the bodies. Those VOL. II. 1874. No. 1255.

documents had been prepared with very great care, and ought to be dealt with as any other documents.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD did not hold himself bound to admit that there was not a great deal in the reports to which he strongly objected.

Dr. MACNAMARA objected very strongly to the reports being published. There were several errors which had inadvertently crept into the reports, and he would be sorry that they should be put permanently on record.

Dr. QUAIN said that the reports would have to be discussed seriatim, and there would be an opportunity when they came out of explaining what was wrong.

Professor TURNER moved the following amendment:-"That the Reports of the Visitors of Examinations be received, but held for the present as confidential." He sympathised very much with the observations Dr. Storrar had made as to the necessity of avoiding an ill feeling on the part of the visited bodies. Another objection to the reports being entered on the minutes was, that it would be putting those bodies which had borne the first brunt of the visitations in a somewhat invidious position.

The PRESIDENT could not see how they were to discuss a measure publicly which was held as confidential. He wished to know whether it was contemplated to exclude reporters while the reports were being discussed.

Dr. STORRAR said that was his view.

Dr. BENNETT thought the proper plan would be to word the resolution so that the reports should be taken as read, and then to let them be put as an appendix.

Dr. HUMPHRY suggested it would be better for the reports to be dealt with in the ordinary way, otherwise the visited bodies might think there was something which required to be kept secret, and that there should be opportunity offered for the correction of some mistakes which had crept in.

Dr. HALDANE, as representing one of the bodies visited, expressed his concurrence with Dr. Humphry. He thought it was very desirable that the reports of the visitors should be discussed immediately. The Council was not at present responsible for those reports. There might be misapprehension on the part of the examiners, and it was not until the Council had agreed to those reports that sanction was given

to them.

Professor Turner's amendment was put, and declared lost. Sir WILLIAM GULL then proposed, and Dr. FLEMING seconded, the following amendment :-"That the Reports of the Visitations be received, and that they be considered at the next meeting of the Council."

After some discussion, Sir William Gull withdrew his amendment.

The original motion of Dr. Andrew Wood was then carried unanimously.

Dr. QUAIN moved-"That a committee be appointed to prepare such a report on the Reports of Visitations of Examinations as may best bring before the Council the points of importance contained in these reports." The first object was to bring the reports in the most convenient form before the Council. If discussion were taken indiscriminately on these reports, great confusion would result. The best plan, he thought, would be to give an abstract of the important points. Of course when the reports came before the Council the full report would also be before them, and could be discussed. Dr. HALDANE seconded the resolution.

Dr. AQUILLA SMITH did not see that the report suggested would be of any advantage.

Several members of the Council having expressed themselves against Dr. Quain's motion, it was withdrawn.

Sir WILLIAM GULL proposed-"That the Reports of the Visitations of Examinations be considered to-morrow in a committee of the whole house," and he suggested that the members of the Council who had attended the examination should consider it their duty to come forward to give what information they could.

The motion was seconded by Dr. APJOHN.

Dr. PARKES pointed out that the plan suggested by Dr. Quain had worked very well on a former occasion.

Ultimately, Sir William Gull's resolution was put and carried. Dr. ACLAND moved-" That copies be obtained of the report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the Adulteration of Food, and that a committee be appointed to consider the bearings of the report on the qualifications in State medicine or in public health instituted by any of the bodies in Schedule (A) of the Medical Act."

Dr. APJOHN having seconded the resolution, it was carried, and Dr. Acland, Dr. Thompson, Professor Turner, Dr. Apjohn, Dr. Stokes, Mr. Quain, Dr. Parkes, Sir Dominic Corrigan, and Mr. Bedford were appointed members of the committee.

Returns from the Medical Department of the Army, dated September 7, 1873, and March 4, 1874, were laid before the Council.

A letter from Dr. J. W. Eastwood, requesting, in the name of the South Durham and Cleveland Medical Society, that the Medical Council would undertake prosecutions under the Act, was read by the Registrar.

Dr. AQUILLA SMITH thought the question had come before the Council on former occasions, and they had invariably declined to become prosecutors.

The PRESIDENT stated that the Council no doubt were judges of registered persons, if guilty of anything in a professional respect, but they were not judges in the case of unregistered persons.

Dr. AQUILLA SMITH moved :-"That an extract from the minutes containing a report of prosecutions (vol. i., page 35) be forwarded to Dr. Eastwood for the information of the South Durham and Cleveland Medical Society."

Dr. ACLAND seconded the resolution, which was carried. Letters were read by the Registrar from the AssistantSecretary to the Board of Trade, respecting two registered practitioners who were not allowed to take charge of emigrant ships in consequence of their misconduct. It appeared the practitioners referred to had been found on board emigrant ships in a drunken state and incapable of performing their duties. The matter had been referred by the Board of Trade to the Medical Council.

The PRESIDENT thought the Council could not proceed in any way against the gentlemen referred to unless it was of opinion that there was primâ facie evidence of their being guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect.

Sir WILLIAM GULL did not think the Council had any power to move in the matter. It was very disgraceful conduct, and they might express their regret at it.

Dr. BENNETT was not sure that they had not the power.

Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN moved that it should be entered on the minutes "That the Registrar read letters from the AssistantSecretary to the Board of Trade respecting two registered practitioners who were not allowed to take charge of emigrant ships because of their misconduct Resolved-That the Registrar acknowledge with thanks the receipt of the letters, but that the Council have no power to interfere in the case referred to."

After some discussion, amendments were proposed, which were subsequently withdrawn, and ultimately Sir Dominic Corrigan's resolution was carried.

The REGISTRAR read a letter from Dr. Walter Mackern, complaining of a registered practitioner lending his name illegally to a person unqualified.

On the motion of Dr. MACNAMARA, seconded by Dr. LEET, a committee was appointed to take Dr. Mackern's letter into consideration.

The proceedings were then adjourned to two o'clock the following day.

SECOND DAY.-FRIDAY, JULY 10.

The minutes of the last meeting having been read and confirmed,

Mr. QUAIN inquired whether there had been any surveyor appointed by the Council to view the new building.

Dr. BENNETT replied that, the premises belonging to the Government, it was not in the power of the Council to appoint

a surveyor.

The PRESIDENT thought that the proper course would be for Mr. Quain to give notice of a motion on the subject.

The Council then, in accordance with a resolution passed yesterday, proceeded to consider the Reports of Visitations of Examinations and of tables of results of examinations in committee of the whole Council.

The PRESIDENT observed that it was a very serious matter how they set about the work, and their endeavour should be to make it as short as possible. It had been suggested to him that the mode of proceeding should be a motion that the Council should adopt the reports one after the other. His own opinion would be very much against that, because it would involve taking the reports paragraph by paragraph. The reports raised questions of two different kinds. Some matters related only to the particular body visited, but there were

other questions of a much more general kind, which would be properly and justly discussed. The suggestion had been made that the members of the Council who took part in those reports should make it their special business, though not to the exclusion of other members, to draw the attention of the Council to such parts of the reports as involved general questions of importance, so that resolutions might be founded upon them. In each case there must be an opportunity for the member of the Council representing the body visited to bring forward any points in which there was any inaccuracy as to fact or any inference that the facts did not justify. It would then be easy for members of the Council to bring forward motions to meet those cases. Take the first case of the Apothecaries' Society. The opinion is expressed that the time allowed for the writing of answers was not sufficient, and there were other instances of a more general kind.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD moved, and Professor TURNER seconded"That the Council resolve itself into a committee of the whole Council for the consideration of the Reports of Visitations of Examinations."

Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN said they had only inspected eight bodies, and they would therefore be reporting only as to onehalf of the total number of bodies. He thought, when taking up so great a subject as this, it would not be right to go into an examination of half of the subject. It would, in his opinion, be better to defer altogether this large subject until they had the reports of the visitations of all the bodies before them. He moved "That the consideration of the Reports of the Visitations of Examinations be deferred until the visitations are completed and are forwarded to the different licensing bodiesfor their observations.'

Dr. QUAIN rose to order. A resolution had been carried yesterday that the reports should be considered to-day.

In deference to the suggestion of the President, Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN altered his amendment, and moved- "That the Council should not resolve itself into a committee to consider the Reports of Visitations of Examinations until the visitations are completed and forwarded to the licensing bodies for their observations." He was himself free from prejudice on the subject, because it so happened that the Queen's University had come out in these reports among the very first of examining bodies. He did not think the Council ought to pronounce censure or praise until they had received from the examining bodies their remarks made in reply to the observations of the visitors.

The amendment not having been seconded, Dr. Andrew Wood's motion was carried.

The first report considered was with reference to the Apothecaries' Society, and the report having been taken as read,

Dr. QUAIN thought it would be proper for him, as one of the visitors, to call the attention of the Council to certain things in reference to this matter. He asked the Council to divest their minds of the feeling to which Sir Dominic Corrigan's observations would give rise. He did not see that this was at all an invidious comparison. He trusted all the reports would be discussed on their merits. He would not occupy the attention of the Council with details of the mode in which the examinations were conducted, but would summarise it by saying they were as satisfactory as they could well be. At page 11 of the report two very important remarks were made; the first of these remarks referred to the want of due preparation on the part of some of the candidates. It was simply painful to see the utter ignorance of the young men who came up for that examination, particularly in anatomy. He might mention an instance of a young man who had passed the preliminary examination of the College of Surgeons, and who had not the slightest idea where the spleen was. He was asked where the cæcum was, and he did not know; and on various other matters he showed great ignorance. Of course he was rejected. Probably the Council might ultimately think it desirable to pass some general resolution, rather than to consider each detail. The next case was on the same page. They were given to understand that the Society was precluded by its Act from testing the knowledge of the candidates in surgery. There was, on the face of this report, a body in England which admitted to their register candidates who were not required to produce any test of a knowledge of one of the most important subjects. That was not the fault of the Society, because they say that under their Act they are not able to examine in surgery. It became almost an imperative duty of the Council to take some steps in

the matter. By its last Act the Apothecaries' Company retains the power of giving a diploma without an examination in surgery. Those were the two important points-the insufficiency of preliminary education, and the still more important one that a body can give a qualification without a knowledge of surgery. He moved "That a copy of the report of the visitors of the examinations of the Society of Apothecaries be forwarded to the Society for their consideration and remarks."

The resolution was seconded by Dr. PYLE.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD understood that the Council had been in the habit for years past of sending the recommendations to the visited bodies, and he hardly knew of any instance in which those recommendations had not been at once adopted by those bodies. Therefore he thought they were going exactly in the course which it was their duty to take. The examiners were struck with the lamentable ignorance displayed by those who were candidates; but that was not the fault of the licensing bodies-they were not responsible for the education the young men had received,--but it raised an important point whether it was a right thing that year after year there should be such an enormous amount of rejections, which appeared to be constantly increasing, and whether it might not be possible for the Council to improve the education of the young men who were to become candidates for licences to practise. It would be an improvement if a student should not only bring a certificate of having attended a course of anatomy, or whatever it might be, but that before he got that certificate of attendance he should be obliged to attend the class examinations of that class, and to have shown a certain minimum standard of proficiency in the subject taught. They would not then have the melancholy results which the table of rejections showed. Dr. Quain had said that the Apothecaries' Society should examine in surgery, but they had no power to do so-the fault of that was the present Medical Act. He thought a short Bill might be passed, rendering it impossible for any man to obtain registration in the Medical Register until he should have been examined in all the branches of the profession.

Dr. THOMPSON asked whether the person who was SO deficient in knowledge held any other licences.

Dr. QUAIN replied that he had passed the first examination of the College of Surgeons two years before.

The PRESIDENT thought it implied no censure on the Apothe-caries' Society that an ignorant man came up and was rejected.

Mr. BRADFORD said, with reference to the examination in surgery, the Act of Parliament of 1815 did not preclude them from examining in surgery. He believed no less than 80 per cent. of the candidates who passed the examination at Apothecaries' Hall became members of the College of Surgeons. That appeared to the Society to render it unnecessary that they should examine in surgery. He was sure if it was thought expedient that the Society of Apothecaries should examine in surgery they would most willingly do so, for it had been their policy throughout to follow the recommendations of the Council.

Dr. BENNETT thought it would appear that the Apothecaries' Society had failed to adopt the recommendation of the Council, which called the attention of licensing bodies to the necessity of examining in surgery. If that were the case, he thought Mr. Bradford had made out a strong case against the Apothecaries' Society.

Sir WILLIAM GULL: Am I to understand Dr. Quain writes this, and that Mr. Bradford says the contrary, "We are given to understand that the Society is precluded by its Act from testing the knowledge of the candidates in surgery?

Mr. QUAIN: The Apothecaries' Act says they shall examine in medicine, and it leaves it there.

Mr. BRADFORD thought they would come into collision with the College of Surgeons if they attempted to examine in surgery.

Sir WILLIAM GULL understood Mr. Bradford to say the Apothecaries' Society would examine in surgery if the Council thought it desirable.

Mr. BRADFORD said the question had not been submitted to the governing body of the Society, but he had no doubt it would be so.

Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN supported the resolution, and said it was not long since he had proposed a similar resolution, which had not met with a seconder. He trusted the reports would be forwarded in the other cases, and that, of course, no judgment would be come to till the answers had been received.

Dr. AQUILLA SMITH proceeded to criticise the details of some of the questions put to candidates.

Dr. MACNAMARA rose to a point of order. The motion was that the report be sent to the Apothecaries' Society. Dr. QUAIN's motion was then put and carried.

Dr. AQUILLA SMITH moved-"That the question No. 4, 'What are the symptoms, diagnosis,,and treatment of tabes mesenterica?' is not a fit and proper question to be included under the head of midwifery."

Dr. ANDREW WOOD denied the fact, and the resolution not being seconded, fell to the ground.

Dr. QUAIN explained that the word " midwifery" included the diseases of women and children.

Dr. APJOHN thought the questions most excellent questions, but they appeared to be of such extent that it would require considerable time and experience to make complete answers to them, particularly the second question," What substances are produced by the destructive distillation of coal? How is ammonia separated, and how is coal-gas purified for ordinary use? State the composition of each substance, and give the chemical symbols." He thought that was a question which a great many professors of chemistry could not answer; and he should be satisfied with a very partial answer to such a question. He would suggest that it would be a great deal better to make the questions more practical, and to diminish the scope of the questions. He moved that the attention of the Apothecaries' Society be drawn to the nature of the questions, and that they should consider whether it would not be well to modify the questions, so as to make them more practical and more easily answered.

The PRESIDENT: There is a possible ambiguity in this statement: "The time allowed for answering the whole of each of the preceding sets of questions is about three hours." What is the set of questions? Is the question on chemistry one set?

Dr. QUAIN: No; the whole thing is to be done in three hours. Dr. PARKES suggested that a motion of the kind proposed by Dr. Apjohn might very well come on afterwards as a general motion. It applied to most of the bodies. He thought the questions a great deal too difficult for the young men who had to answer them.

The PRESIDENT thought Dr. Parkes's suggestion a very good one, and that the Council would be greatly indebted if any member who had read the papers and seen the nature of the answers would propose resolutions, which would be put on the programme.

Dr. BENNETT said a note should be made of these matters, which had reference to all the bodies. He thought it almost impossible for many men of ordinary capacity to answer efficiently the questions he had seen. They were far too elaborate, and he thought that one of the points as to which a note should be made for the passing of some general resolution at the end of their discussion.

Dr. APJOHN withdrew his resolution.

The REGISTRAR read a letter from the solicitor to the Council, to the effect that a registered practitioner who had been summoned in pursuance of section 29 of the Medical Act (1858) to attend for inquiry on Friday, July 10, at three o'clock, had left the country, and that consequently the notice had not been served.

Dr. BENNETT suggested that the Registrar should send to his address, and if the letter were returned he might be struck out of the Register on the ground that his address was no longer given on the Register. He understood that the case was a very gross one.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD thought the safer plan would be to take the advice of the solicitor as to what should be done.

The PRESIDENT did not think it necessary to do more than enter the matter on the minutes.

Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN proposed, and Dr. STORRAR seconded"That the Council having been informed, through their solicitor, that a registered person, who had been summoned to appear before the Council on this day, had shipped for Adelaide, the summons for his attendance could not be served upon him." The man had run away, and there was an end of it.

Dr. BENNETT thought, that being the case, he had no right to retain his name on the Register.

Dr. MACNAMARA said it appeared this gentleman had been guilty of some very gross crime, that he had confessed his crime, and that they ought not to allow him to escape scathless. They had power to remove his name from the Register, and he would move as an amendment-"That the case of the

registered person be referred to the Branch Council of the division of the Kingdom in which he is registered, and that it be investigated, and, if necessary, dealt with in accordance with Section 14 of the Medical Act."

The amendment was seconded by Dr. PARKES.

Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN thought the amendment could not be put-the Council could not delegate its powers to the Branch Council.

The PRESIDENT reminded Sir Dominic Corrigan that the proceeding suggested by Dr. Macnamara was in accordance with the standing orders of the Council.

After some discussion, in which many members of the Council joined, the amendment was rejected, and Sir Dominic Corrigan's motion was carried.

The Council then proceeded to the consideration of the report on the examination of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Edinburgh.

Dr. PARKES moved-"That the reports of the visitors of the first and second conjoint examinations of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Edinburgh, held in July, 1873, be forwarded to the two Royal Colleges for their consideration and remarks." He had a few remarks to make on general questions, but those he deferred for the present.

Dr. APJOHN Seconded the resolution, which was carried. The PRESIDENT inquired whether amongst the general questions Dr. Parkes intended to raise that to which he referred on page 26 and again at page 29, as to the advisability or not of setting three or four questions and asking for answers only to two or three.

Dr. PARKES thought it was a thing which would be better considered by the two Colleges. It seemed to be a matter eminently for them.

Dr. HALDANE thought it desirable that an opinion should be expressed on this point by the Council. In his time the system was adopted of only having three or four questions, to all of which answers were required; but it was found in such very wide subjects as physiology and chemistry that a man might be unfortunately ignorant of the particular questions and be rejected. After due consideration the Colleges came to the opinion that it was better to give a certain latitude--to put more questions, and to allow the candidate to answer a certain number.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD said it must be remembered that the written part of the examination was only one part, and they must apportion the examination to the time at command. At the oral examination no limitation was put to the questions, and no option was given to the student as to which he should answer or which he should not. The Colleges would give every consideration to what had been said; they had no desire but to have the examination on such a foundation as to secure that no incompetent man should enter the profession. He thought on reading over the reports which had been made, the visitors would say that they arrived at a time when there happened to be a most unfortunate batch of candidates who showed a most deplorable ignorance on the subjects in which they were examined, and he would also add that those gentlemen met with condign punishment. He called the attention of the Council to the fact that he believed the greater part, if not all, were candidates from other parts of the country, and they were not to judge of the Edinburgh school by the answers which were given. He thought it necessary to state that distinctly.

Dr. SHARPEY thought it desirable for Dr. Andrew Wood to obtain a statement of the sources from which the candidates obtained their certificates. It was impossible to teach such men if they came with an utter want of knowledge.

Dr. ANDREW WooD admitted there were a number of errors in the spelling, but he was certain that none of those men were examined at the preliminary examination of the Colleges, which was a most stringent examination. At the last examination in Latin, out of twenty-two or twenty-three only six passed. That showed that they were not lenient. It should not be put down that Scotchmen are such bad spellers. Dr. Parkes would no doubt say that he saw no undue leniency shown to the candidates.

Dr. BENNETT referred to another question of considerable importance. He should be glad if Dr. Andrew Wood would be good enough to obtain the number of candidates rejected, and where they came from, where they had their preliminary education, and where they had their professional examination before they came up for examination in Edinburgh. He also

suggested that the Irish members of the Council should do the

same.

The PRESIDENT said his own feeling was that, though the system pursued was a good one, it was not the best. The principle of setting four questions in anatomy and physiology, of which three were to be answered and not more, and in chemistry three questions, of which two were to be answered and not more, was an erroneous mode of setting the examination papers, because the advantage of knowing what the man. was ignorant of was lost. If they set four questions with sufficient time for the man to answer those four questions, then if he answered only three of them they would know that he was ignorant of the fourth. He agreed that the questions should not be too few because the candidate might have been very fortunate or unfortunate as to the questions put. If many questions were put, and a sufficient time were allowed for answering all the questions, then the examiners wou'd ascertain not only what a man knew, but what he did not know.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD presumed the object of putting four questions and answering three only was that the examiners considered that the time allowed was only sufficient for three. Mr. QUAIN said if the candidate left out the answer to one question it did not follow that he was not acquainted with it. A boy of eighteen could not make an exact calculation as to the time required. He had examined many young men, sometimes not less than three times a week, and he found them never able to calculate the time. They sometimes spent a great deal of time in answering one question, and found at the end they had not the time to do more, though they were really acquainted with it, and could have answered. It must not be supposed that they were ignorant because they did not

answer.

Professor TURNER thought it very important that in setting examination papers the subjects should not be mixed up together-he gathered that that was done. For instance, with reference to the Apothecaries' Society it was stated that a certain number of hours included an examination in chemistry and materia medica, and then again in midwifery and forensic medicine during a similar allotted period. In this manner the candidate's mind did not become sufficiently cleared on one subject before he had to go into another. He thought a certain time should be allowed to answer certain questions, that then the candidate should be allowed to go out for a short time, and then set to work on a fresh subject. By that means candidates would preserve a proper balance of time to be given. to each subject. Another question which had cropped up was whether a candidate should have a certain latitude allowed him as regards the number of questions which he might answer. He thought it very important that in framing an examination paper there should be a certain latitude allowed to a candidate, and when a candidate failed to answer one question and answered three he did not think the examiners had a right to assume that the candidate was ignorant of the subject of the question he did not answer. If a man were well posted in certain parts, naturally he would select those parts on which he felt himself best informed, and he might go on writing till he had exhausted his time. The selection of questions gave the examiner an opportunity of increasing the range of the examination.

Dr. THOMSON had examined very many classes, and had tried a variety of ways. He would not like to be tied to any mode of proceeding. He pointed out that if the number of questions proposed be answered during the time, that would be a sufficieut test of the knowledge of the candidate. That was the main point to be secured. He would not say that in many cases, a written answer to one or two questions would be sufficient, but if in the opinion of the examining board three or four questions were a sufficient test of the qualifications of the candidates, then they ought to be satisfied, whether a greater number of questions had been proposed or not. He had pursued both plans, and found advantages in both. On the whole, he thought it more precise and more simple to limit the number of questions.

Dr. SHARPEY had observed that the candidates varied very much in ability; some answered the questions elaborately with great care and detail, and others again more concisely. By setting a moderate number of questions and insisting on their giving answers, it gave an opportunity for the different kinds of minds to show what they were made of. It might be said you must answer a certain number.

Dr. HUMPHRY's feeling was, that this was a question on

which no opinion of the Council should be given. Professor Turner spoke of latitude to the student, but he thought a certain amount of latitude should be allowed to the examiners. The Council by a decided opinion would be rather committing itself in a direction in which he thought it better that they should not lay down specific rules. Having visited the University of Glasgow, he had come to the conclusion that it was not a point of very great importance; he saw advantages on both sides.

Dr. STORRAR said he could not speak from his own experience as an examiner, but only from a good deal of experience as a superintendent and an observer of examinations, and as one who knew the views of examiners on the subject. In the University of London examinations, as well as in the Civil Service examinations, the practice was to set a greater number of questions than were expected to be answered, and then to limit the number that were to be answered. Say, for instance, six are to be answered: nine are set, and a heading put to the paper that not more than six of those questions are to be answered. The reason is this: Superficial men who did not know any question thoroughly would take refuge in a sort of general sketch of all the questions, in such a way as to perplex the examiner, and make it exceedingly difficult for the examiner really to discover what was the amount of precise information that the candidate had on any one subject. He did not argue for it, but he simply mentioned it in order to show that there was an argument for that side of the question. Dr. AQUILLA SMITH agreed with the observations made by Professor Turner. He had a great objection to the practice of setting four questions and not permitting the candidate to answer more than three. The practical result was that it was quite unnecessary to set more than three questions, for a curious result manifested itself; as stated by the examiners, "It will be observed on reading the answers that no one attempted to answer the fourth question."

Dr. FLEMING did not think it was a question so much of the number as of the kind of questions. If they were such as to test the candidate's knowledge, that was sufficient.

Dr. PARKES did not think that he and his colleagues attached much importance to the point which had been so much discussed. They were very much struck by the fact that the fourth question was altogether avoided. The other questions noticed in the report appeared to him to be far more important. One was the extremely short time given in all the subjects, in the second examination specially. Occasionally similar questions were put in both written and oral examinations, owing to the fact that the same examiners did not conduct the inquiry.

The next report considered was with reference to the reports on the examinations for the single qualification of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

Dr. BENNETT confirmed the statement made by others as to the extreme inefficiency of the candidates. He moved-"That the reports of the visitors of examinations for the single qualification of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Edinburgh be forwarded to those bodies for their consideration and remarks."

With

Dr. AQUILLA SMITH thought the prescriptions written out by the candidates betrayed great ignorance of the Latin language. The PRESIDENT observed that the report did not state whether the candidates who gave those answers were passed or rejected. Dr. HALDANE Could not at the moment say the results of the examinations, but he could easily get the results. reference to the statement of Dr. Bennett, that the College of Physicians grants its licences without examination in surgery, this was perfectly true, but would very soon be rectified. The College of Physicians, till after the passing of the Medical Act, was not a licensing body. In connexion with the College of Physicians a conjoint examination was necessitated, the College of Surgeons being answerable for the surgical part, and the College of Physicians for the medical part. Latterly, a very few students-men possessing no qualification-had presented themselves, and he was sorry to see that the College had not instituted an examination in surgery; but he could say, as to the College of Physicians, that when the regulations come up for revision-which will be in the first week in August-the deficiency would be supplied and the examiners would be appointed for the examination of those candidates who have not already passed an examination in surgery.

Mr. QUAIN having seconded the resolution, it was carried. Dr. ANDREW WOOD pointed out that at page 76 there was a

note-" Answers to these questions we did not receive." He was anxious that no slur should rest upon the College he represented, as they had not refused to give up the answers.

Dr. BENNETT said most positively that the absence of the answers did not arise from their having been refused, but they were not among the papers which they had in their possession when they came to draw up their report, and he did not think it a matter of such importance as to write for them. He was quite willing to take the whole blame upon himself of their not being printed. He did not believe it was from any carelessness on the part of the Registrar.

Dr. ANDREW WOOD expressed his satisfaction with Dr. Bennett's explanation. He called the attention of the Council to the fact that the visitors had not mentioned whether the candidates were rejected or passed.

The Council then proceeded to consider the report on the second or pass conjoint examination of the Faculties of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

Dr. PARKES moved, and Dr. APJOHN seconded-"That the reports of the visitors of the first and second conjoint examinations of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Edinburgh, held in July, 1873, be forwarded to the two Royal Colleges for their consideration and remarks."

The resolution was carried.

Dr. FLEMING called attention to a passage on page 83, that a good deal of time was taken up by only two candidates, and we hardly know how the examiners could have carried out the clinical examination on the plan followed had there been ten or twenty candidates instead of two." He also called attention to a passage at page 84:-" In the points noted above, the examination was not, in our opinion, so good a test as it should have been; but if the details we have referred to are altered, we are of opinion that (if equally good examiners always act, and act with equal care as in the examination we witnessed) the object aimed at by the examination must be attained." This, he thought, conveyed some imputation upon the competency of the examiners.

Sir WILLIAM GULL: I think Dr. Fleming is mistaken. It is really a compliment.

Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN thought the "if" implied that they did, as a general practice, let in inefficient men to act as examiners.

Dr. PARKES admitted the paragraph was not inserted without an intention, and he was glad Dr. Fleming had alluded to it. At the same time, he entirely disclaimed the inferences which had been put upon it. It was intended to call the attention of the examiners to the mode in which the examiners were chosen. They elected six examiners from among the resident Fellows only, and it was for the Council to say that that was proper. It was a very small body: it excluded all the other practitioners in Glasgow who did not belong to the Faculty.

Dr. FLEMING inquired whether there was any body which took its examiners from among the Fellows.

Dr. HALDANE said the College of Physicians of Edinburgh did. In the case of surgery he said they should probably elect Fellows of the College of Surgeons. More than once, in the case of anatomy and physiology, they had chosen examiners not of their own college.

Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN thought the paragraph contained an inuendo that among the ninety Fellows they could not possibly find a Fellow who was fit to examine. He thought the London University the most perfect of all, and he was borne out by the fact that the first positions in Ireland were in many cases held by men who had undergone the examination of the London University. In the other universities who were the examiners? Men who had been thirty or forty years professors of the subject, and they examined their own pupils. thought they ought to postpone the question as to the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, which was at present put under heavy censure, until they had the returns from all the licensing bodies.

He

The PRESIDENT said he thought the censure was relieved by the fact that they had at Glasgow as many as ninety Fellows to choose from.

Dr. HUMPHRY did not think when any body selected examiners out of its own body it conveyed an imputation on its own members. There was no reason why the members of its own body should be considered inefficient. He took a larger view-namely, that it was desirable to take examinations