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