This page has been validated.
28
that London is as good a school for Surgeons as Edinburgh. As to degrees conferred by the Physicians to the London Hospitals, being equally legal, with those granted at Edinburgh, I believe no man in his senses would venture to practise under the sanction of such a degree[1]. It may be amusing to the medical man, to see an account of some of the lectures in the department of Medicine, given at the English Universities, then he will be able to judge for himself, how far such a mode of instruction will go, in educating a Physician.
The following extracts are taken from the "Cambridge University Calendar," for 1805, published by Deighton, Cambridge.
- ↑ Surely the author of the paper in question forgets, that several of the Physicians to the London Hospitals and of the Medical Lecturers are graduates of Edinburgh; consequently, it is to these men, as well as to others, that Students who graduate afterwards at Oxford and Cambridge resort, to obtain their medical knowledge, and which is not to be obtained at either of those Universities. As he does not think the University of Edinburgh competent to grant degrees, why should he think graduates of Edinburgh competent? In what essential, in the constitution of an University, is Edinburgh deficient? He has asserted, it is "mis-called an University," but he does not condescend to prove that it is not one. Perhaps, even he, may entertain a different opinion, after having perused the Charter. Vide Appendix, No. l.
