THE BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AT LIVERPOOL.

By JOHN H. CLARKE, M.D.

WHAT is the raison d'être of the British Medical Association? It would appear to be twofold. One main object of the existence of the Association is clearly the making of speeches from time to time setting forth that the profession is endowed with all the cardinal virtues—and a few others—in a degree far surpassing all other professions ; that, in spite of this, in our once happy islands this right worthy body labours under grievous disabilities and wrongs; that in the House of Commons it has few representatives, whilst in the House of Lords-the home of nobility—the profession which all the world allows is "noble,” has no representative at all! The other and scarcely less important object of the Association is, as it appears, to formulate from year to year the feelings of the dominant section of the medical profession in Great Britain on the subject of homoeopathy, and to draw up rules for the guidance of the members of the Association as to how they ought to behave themselves towards those who have tried and proved the value of Hahnemann's rule.

It will be seen that either of these objects forms in itself a sufficient reason for the Association's existence, and in itself affords occupation of a never-ending kind. The chief pontiff of the Association who pulls the wires and conducts the organ, need have no fears of his labours being brought to a premature close.

Before fixing our attention on the Liverpool meeting and showing how well these two objects were there kept in view, it may be advisable to recall the principal incidents of the two previous meetings. It will be remembered that at the Ryde meeting in 1881, Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson and Dr. Syers Bristowe-two of the largest-minded men in the profession-and with them, though somewhat less decidedly, Mr. Barrow, had the courage to propose that the

conduct of members as regards homoeopathists should be regulated on broad principles of common justice and common sense. Needless to say, their advice was rejected with scorn, and their presumption condemned in no measured terms. The following year, at Worcester, the President, Dr. Strange, after duly setting forth the "nobility" of the profession in general, and of the Association in particular, and the high degree in which "the great christian virtue " of " liberty " was possessed by the latter, proposed that a High Court of (medical) Equity and Ethics should be founded to decide the question of homoeopathy and other matters on principles more in accordance with British Medical sentiments than those advocated by Mr. Hutchinson and Dr. Bristowe. It was accordingly resolved that measures should be taken to render it impossible for a professing homoeopath to enter the Association. Honesty and candour were to count for nothing; members of the profession notorious for their belief in the law of similars, and their adherence to it in their practice, were to be welcomed as previously, provided they were too cowardly to acknowledge their belief. But this was not enough for some zealous British medicals. There were professed homoeopathists already in the fold. It was proposed by a Mr. Nelson Hardy that the fact of their being homœopathists should of itself disqualify for membership. This was objected to by Mr. Husband of Bournemouth,-not because he loved homœopathy or common justice, bnt because he loved and believed in neither. The proposal of Mr. N. Hardy, he thought, would have the effect of causing expelled homœopathists to appeal to law, and for aught he knew the Lord Chief Justice might be a homœopath, and then, according to British Medical ideas of justice, the Association could not expect to receive fair play from the British Judicial Bench! Mr. Hardy's amendment was therefore lost.

But Mr. Hardy's soul did not find peace. The rejection of the amendment was an ignominious sacrifice of bigotry to expediency; and in the British Medical Association this was a disgrace not to be endured. Bigotry

must reign there supreme, or the character of the Association would be gone. So felt Mr. Hardy, and his wrath slumbered. At Liverpool the opportunity arose, and his feelings once more found vent. Matters then stood as they were left at Worcester,-every precaution being taken to keep the homeopathic wolf out of the fold of the timid British Medical sheep. A new bye-law was now proposed relating to the election of members, but leaving the beforementioned precautions still in force. The bye-law contained this clause :-" Provided that the power of such Branch Council shall only extend to the election of male persons." Here was Mr. Nelson Hardy's chance. He proposed to amend the bye-law by inserting after “male persons" the words "not practising homœopathy nor advertising." The "judicious "Husband, whilst he feared homœopathy very much, feared advertising still more ;especially advertising homoeopathy. He" thought it would be undesirable to do anything to advertise homœopathy or make it more powerful than it was." "For himself, he would leave homeopathy to the contempt of all wellregulated minds. Having thus relieved his conscience, [what a delicate conscience he must have!] he should vote against the amendment." Thereupon all these "wellregulated minds" commenced to "discuss" the point. The British Medical Journal does not describe this discussion and so the Liverpool Mercury shall do it for us:

"At this point considerable uproar was caused by members trying to obtain the ear of the chair against the wish of a large section of the meeting, who clamoured for the suppression of the discussion and an immediate vote. The noise was intense in spite of the efforts to preserve anything like a semblance of order. A member of the committee came forward and said, ' Gentlemen, are you going to disgrace yourselves by misbehaving in a public meeting and disobeying the chair.' This appeal was responded to by loud cries of 'Chair,' and hissing, which was directed against Dr. Gilbart Smith (London) and Dr. O'Connor, the former stationed underneath the gallery, and the latter in the gallery, both of whom were in vain endeavouring to obtain a hearing. In the midst of considerable disorder, the Chairman

said, 'I am in the hands of the meeting,' to which several gentlemen replied, and the meeting supports you.' The Chairman then said, 'The meeting says "Vote," and I put the amendment.' ('No, no,' and 'Yes, yes.') A great tumult prevailed during the show of hands, which resulted, according to the ruling of the Chairman, in the amendment being lost. He then asked for a show of hands in favour of the clause in its original state, whereupon

"Dr. GILBART SMITH, who had several times essayed to speak, said, amid continued uproar-'I propose an amendment to the resolution as you now put it. It is that this meeting be now adjourned, seeing that the business has hardly been conducted in a manner consistent with the dignity of the Association.' ('Hear, hear,' and laughter.)

"Mr. WALTER RIVINGTON (London), who had several times risen to a point of order and was as frequently refused a hearing, seconded this proposition.

"Dr. FITZPATRICK asked the Chairman to put it to the meeting whether the gentlemen named, and others, should be allowed to address the meeting or be turned out. (Laughter and uproar).

"Dr. W. R. ROGERS (London) said they had patiently listened to a speech from the last speaker, and it was unfair to endeavour to put down those who differed from him. It was a disgraceful thing that a body of gentlemen should form a clique to stop others from speaking on a subject which was interesting to all.

"Dr. O'CONNOR said the practice of discussion in the House of Commons was to allow any member to speak to an amendment. Why had the Chairman refused to allow Dr. Gilbart Smith to speak?

“The CHAIRMAN said it was the wish of the meeting that they should not hear him.

"Dr. O'CONNOR continued speaking, but owing to the loud cries of 'sit down,' and the noise caused by a number of gentlemen leaving the meeting abruptly, his observations were inaudible.

"The CHAIRMAN asked the meeting whether it was their pleasure to hear Dr. Gilbart Smith, who was still standing, and the meeting responded with cries of 'No' and 'Yes.'

VOL. XLI, NO. CLXVI.-OCTOBER, 1883.

ᎪᎪ

"A member in the gallery created laughter by remarking 'I beg to move that this house do report progress.'

"Ultimately another vote was taken, and the rule as it stood was declared to be affirmed by a majority of the meeting."*

And now we will hear the comments of another Liverpool paper, the Daily Post on these proceedings of the "well-regulated minds."

"But the doctors seem quite incapable of rational discussion. Impatience has been their principal characteristic all the week during the business of the sections. Umbrellas must have been worn nearly to the stump in drowning the voices of speakers,

In the course of this discussion, as reported (though not described) by the British Medical Journal of August 4th, Mr. John Dix, of Hull, said that "there was an old bye-law that every candidate for membership should sign a declaration that he was not a homœopath and did not intend to become one, and no one could explain why the law had fallen through." The explanation is simple enough, though none of the leaders of the Association saw fit to enlighten Mr. Dix and the meeting on the point. To have done so would have involved the confession of humiliation, and the Association cannot afford to be straightforward at that price. At the notorious Brighton meeting of the British Medical Association, where homoeopathy was solemnly cursed by bell, book, and candle, the anathemas of this great liberal body were crystallised into the precious "law" referred to by Mr. Dix; and when, soon afterwards, the Association applied to Government for a charter of incorporation the Brighton law appeared among the other rules and regulations submitted by the Association to the Board of Trade. The gentlemen composing that Board, not being medical men, at once saw the injustice and absurdity of the law, and struck it out bodily, refusing to grant the charter unless it were surrendered. The Association ate the leek with as much relish as may be supposed, and got its charter. That is why the "old byelaw" has fallen through, and that is why the Association is reduced to adopting all manner of circuitous and underhand expedients for keeping homœopathists out of their fold in place of directly expelling them, or refusing them admission. To do this would be to forfeit their charter and all the rights it conveys. Mr. Husband was quite wrong when he said the Association "had a right to exclude anybody." It could not exclude even himself were he to turn homœopathist unless he had violated the laws in force under the charter. A simple explanation of this fact would have put a speedy end to the vapourings of the Husbands and Nelson Hardys, and have saved the meeting from resolving itself into the above-described pandemonium; but then it would have been the more honourable and straightforward course to have adopted, and consequently a violation of all the most cherished traditions of the British Medical Association.