190 
MAJORITY REPORT. 
but as affecting the Minister's exercise of his powers under the 
existing Regulations were as follows : (1) that when a complaint 
has been dealt with by the bodies set up by the Regulations for 
this purpose there should not be a liability to have the whole 
matter re-opened by separate Departmental action either by the 
Ministry itself or by those bodies at the instigation of the 
Ministry ; (2) that when the complaint has been made in one 
prescribed form penalties should not be inflicted in respect of 
offences not formally alleged or of offences which, if alleged, 
should have been formulated in a different prescribed way, and 
might have required a different line of defence; (3) that full con- 
sideration should be paid to the findings or recommendations of 
a committee (whethér Medical Service Sub-Committee, or 
Inquiry Committee) which has itself investigated the details of 
the case, in mitigation of the heinousness of the misconduct even 
when proved; (4) that it is essential to draw a strict distinction 
between professional conduct in the attention given to a patient 
and the nature of the exact professional treatment given to the 
patient, and that the propriety of any particular method or line 
of treatment should not be made the subject of investigation in 
connexion with the insurance service. (App. XLVII, 42.) 
446. The Association submitted these principles, we gather, as. 
a result of their consideration of particular cases recently 
dealt with by the Ministry. Details of those cases 
were not placed before us, and we are not, therefore, 
in a position to express any opinion as to how far the 
action of the Ministry may be open to criticism in the 
directions indicated. Moreover, it is difficult to express 
an opinion on the validity of some of these propositions without 
reference to particular cases, since they are stated in a form which 
is capable of various interpretations, and a general assent or 
dissent might be misleading. As regards the first point, we 
understand that the question arose in connexion with a particular 
case which came before the Lord Chief Justice, when this precise 
point was one of those on which the action of the Minister was 
challenged, and the Lord Chief Justice held that the Minister's 
action was perfectly proper. As to the expediency, as distinct 
from the legality, of such action, it appears to us that much may 
depend on the circumstances of particular cases, and the matter 
was not placed before us by the Association in sufficient detail to 
enable us to express an opinion as to the cases in which such an 
exercise of the Minister's powers might, or might not, be entirely 
desirable. 
447. The fourth point is the one which the witnesses of the 
Association stated that they regarded as gravest and most vital. 
(Q. 15,220.) This proposition also appears to be one to which an 
unqualified assent might be open to misinterpretation. We agree 
that where it appears that a practitioner has exercised his