We last week presented our readers with a full[20] and, we trust,
accurate account of the trial for libel, which has recently excited
so much interest; and we offered some remarks of a general nature
upon its result and tendency. We had purposed at the same time to
subject Mr. Wakley's mode of conducting his cause to a critical
investigation, but this we were prevented from doing by want of
time and space. We thought it likely, too, that the Editor of the
Lancet would have fairly met the question in his next publication,
and himself put the facts of the case, at least, on record: instead
of this, however, he has devoted his pages to compliments to
himself, and scurrilous and absurd abuse of Sir James Scarlett,
in which he informs us that in his opinion that gentleman is
"prodigiously overrated even as a lawyer," and says many other
things, which serve only to shew how dreadfully Wakley himself had
smarted under his lash.
We find the general opinion to correspond with that which we
expressed last week--that the defendant had managed his cause in
a very bungling manner; and the estimation in which he and his
witnesses were held by Judge and Jury is apparent from the charge
of the one, and decision of the other. Both, indeed, regarded the
asseverations of his whole _family party_ as dust in the balance
against the testimony of one single competent and honourable
man--Mr. Callaway; for on his evidence the result obviously hinged.
Our contemporary affects to look upon the verdict as a triumph on
his part--so he would if the damages had been five hundred or a
thousand pounds, for in truth he has nothing else for it; and with
all our hearts we wish him many such victories.
With regard to the amount of damages, we certainly should have been
better pleased had it been larger; but we did not expect that it
would--nay a reference to our number which was published while the
trial was going on, will shew that we were even doubtful of the
verdict, because we know how extremely difficult it is for a jury
to comprehend such a complicated question--how easy for a knave to
impose upon their ignorance by misrepresentation and falsehood. It
is quite obvious that if the jury had believed one syllable of the
evidence of Wakley's witnesses, they must have given the verdict
in his favour. In a case like this, where _one individual only_,
and he the plaintiff, can be fully aware of the difficulties which
had to be overcome, it is almost impossible to bring evidence
into a court of justice capable of satisfying the minds of twelve
unprofessional men. From this circumstance alone it was that we
expressed a doubtful opinion of the result. But besides all this,
it is well known to all--_that one talesman might go determined to
starve out the rest--that ten special jurymen might wish to give
500l. and yet that, by the absurd constitution of the English law,
their verdict might be thus controlled by one individual friendly
to the defendant_.
Most fortunately for the cause of truth, Wakley had the vanity and
folly to conduct the defence himself, and, judging of other men's
estimation of moral character by his own, he did not hesitate to
place in the box witnesses whom no counsel would have suffered to
go there, and who, being unable to stand the cross-examination,
led to what must have been to Wakley a most humiliating exposure.
Next to this, the most beneficial effect produced was that of
the defendant's cross-examination of his opponent's witnesses:
it was amusingly absurd, and shewed a lamentable want of tact,
always eliciting something which he ought to have avoided. Lastly
came the reply, of which he tells us he is himself ashamed--"We
may state most unfeignedly," says he, "that we look back with
regret to our errors in point of omission." Nor is this the only
part of it for which he has cause to blush, for any thing more
miserably deficient we never heard: it was a mass of confusion
throughout--a repetition of the same ideas and expressions--and a
most injudicious betrayal of rancorous feeling, at the very moment
he was profanely invoking heaven to witness that he bore enmity to
no man. In speaking of his reply in our last number, we declared
it to be "false in statement--sophistical in argument--coarse
in language--and diabolical in tendency;" and we now proceed to
illustrate these several qualifications, in doing which little more
will be necessary than to select a few passages, and arrange them
under their appropriate heads.
_False in Statement._--One of Wakley's principal objects was to
impress upon the Jury a belief that he had not in any way attempted
to influence his witnesses, nor even spoken to most of them,
anterior to the trial. "Out of nine witnesses I have placed in the
box, (says he) I never saw five of them, nor even spoke to five
of them till yesterday." We appeal to any man of common sense,
whether it be probable that this is true. It is possible indeed,
and only just possible, that he was contented with employing
others to question his witnesses, and ascertain what evidence they
would give; but even if it were so, the assertion was not the
less false in a moral point of view, because his intention was
to convey the belief that he had inquired no farther than merely
whether or not the witnesses had been present at the operation.
But incredible and absurd as this was, he ventured a step farther,
and assigned a reason for the choice made of one witness--(Lee the
potatoe-merchant.) "I had heard (said Wakley) he was present at the
operation--an honest man, and that he was a friend of Mr. Bransby
Cooper, under the highest obligation to the Cooper family. Without
asking him a single question I put him into the box, as I was most
anxious you should hear all the evidence that could be adduced, and
from _unsuspected and untainted quarters_." This lie carried with
it its own refutation; for Lee swore that he had never even spoken
to Mr. Cooper; and we are therefore amazed that Wakley should
have hazarded so gross an assertion, as it could only have been
effective on the supposition of his addressing a jury of absolute
simpletons. But again--"Who were my witnesses? not men whom I had
trained and lectured on models, and sketches, and drawings. Has
it been shewn to you that I was closeted with any person or set
of persons?" Yes, Mr. Thomas Wakley, it has been shewn, and by no
less an authority than that of your _fidus Achates_, Mr. James
Lambert. "The defendant (says the worthy author of the libel), the
defendant was there whilst I was explaining the parts to persons
who were to be witnesses--_the defendant also explained them to
the same persons_." And again, "I have heard explanations given to
persons who were to be witnesses in this cause FOUR OR FIVE TIMES
within the last six weeks." So also that excellent thorough-going
witness, Mr. Jeffry Pearl: "a _gentleman_ of the name of Lambert
introduced me to the defendant; THE DEFENDANT _and Mr. Lambert
endeavoured to shew that the forceps had passed between the bladder
and the rectum_." So much for placing men in the box because they
are friends of Mr. Cooper--so much for procuring evidence from
"untainted quarters!"
This is only to be matched in effrontery by the statement of some
wise-acre at the radical meeting on Tuesday night. Being asked why
no notice had been taken in the Lancet of a successful operation of
lithotomy performed by Mr. B. Cooper, soon after the publication
of the libel, he assigned as the reason that Mr. Wakley thought it
might increase the damages, and otherwise injure Mr. Cooper! What a
noodle the man must be to expect any one to believe him[21]!
Mr. Wakley asserted that the evidence of his witnesses remained
"untouched--wholly uncontradicted;"--whereas there was scarcely a
single point in their statements which was not contradicted either
by Mr. Callaway, who was present at the operation, or Mr. Key and
Dr. Hodgkin, who examined the parts after death. But what is more
remarkable, there was scarcely a circumstance on which his own
witnesses agreed--for example, they differed with regard to the
nature and direction of the incisions; with regard to the manner
and frequency of introducing the forceps; with regard to the number
of instruments used, and the mode of applying them; with regard to
the size of the wound; with regard to the degree of force employed,
and with regard to the appearances after death. Yet, in the face
of all this, Wakley had the impudence to tell the jury that his
evidence remained "uncontradicted." We have no hesitation in
asserting that his own witnesses (putting Mr. Cooper's out of the
question) advanced no charge of which they did not also furnish the
refutation.
Mr. Wakley asserted that Mr. Cooper was incapable of telling why
he could not extract the stone, even "while he had his finger in
the bladder." This is false: neither Mr. Cooper nor Mr. Callaway
were able to reach the bladder with the finger at all, owing to the
depth of the perineum.
Mr. Wakley told the jury that the plaintiff did not like the
bladder to be exposed, "because to surgeons there is indisputable
proof that Bransby Cooper did not perform that operation as he
ought," and that "Mr. Key and Mr. Callaway knew it." This is false:
Mr. Key, Mr. Callaway, and Dr. Hodgkin, who had examined the parts,
all deposed that there was nothing in them indicative of the
operation having been improperly performed. Indeed, had it been as
Wakley asserted, the plaintiff would not have been so foolish as to
have had the parts preserved at all.
_Sophistical in argument._--One of the pieces of sophistry on
which Wakley seems chiefly to have depended, inasmuch as he went
over it _six times_ in the course of his speech, was, that if his
account of the operation had been incorrect more of those who were
present would have been brought forward to prove it so. But, as
we stated in our last Number, to have objected to Wakley bringing
forward pupils, on the ground of their being incompetent, and then
to have done the same thing, would have been grossly inconsistent.
Lord Tenterden, in his charge, said, "he did not see whom he (Mr.
Cooper) could, with propriety, have called besides Mr. Callaway;
the others were all young men, only pupils, and probably too young
and inexperienced to form any judgment on the case that could
be relied on." There is also another person who has objected to
these witnesses whom we may mention--not, indeed, one for whose
authority we have the highest possible respect, but of whom the
defendant in this case probably thinks more favourably--we mean
Mr. Thomas Wakley, who, speaking of the Letter formerly published
by Mr. Cooper's pupils on the subject of this operation, says,
"their united opinion of the skill, dexterity, and self-possession
exhibited by Mr. Bransby Cooper on this occasion, is not likely to
influence the judgment of the profession, whatever it may effect
with the public."
The use made by Wakley of Sir Astley Cooper's expression, "give
him time," is another specimen of sophistry. Sir Astley evidently
meant merely to say that, _ceteris paribus_, a man who had been
twenty years surgeon to an Hospital would be more experienced than
one who had held the situation but one-fourth of that period.
This we believe to have been his sentiment, though nothing was
ever less happily expressed. Accordingly it was not lost upon the
defendant, who exclaimed, "Is that the way in which our hospitals
are to be conducted? Is that the mode in which your poor patients
are to be treated?--that young and inexperienced men are to be
placed there to _learn their profession_--not to know it before
they get there, but are to go there to learn it--and learn it
upon whom?--upon individuals who are as much entitled to the
best and most scientific practice of surgery as any nobleman in
this land." All very fine--but we should be glad to know how or
where a practical acquaintance with surgery is to be acquired
but in public hospitals--and if no man is to be appointed till
after he has gained experience, where are such men to come from?
Where are ready-made surgeons to be found fit to operate even
before Lambert, without his being able _to make a hole_ in their
reputation?
One of the most knavish attempts in the whole speech, to take
advantage of the jury, was exhibited in his description of the
operation. How different from the clear, perspicuous, and candid
narrative of Sir James Scarlett. You are told, says Wakley, that
the stone was shelved _above_ the pubes and _behind_ the pubes;
but, continued he, (placing a pelvis in the position in which it is
during the operation,) a stone cannot be lodged above the pubes,
because, you see, the pubes is above the bladder! This was, indeed,
calculated to confuse men unaccustomed to the subject, and who
did not probably reflect that above and below are merely relative
terms, which must change with every change of position, and that
it was not meant that the stone was between the pubes and external
integuments, which, in the position for lithotomy, would be the
literal meaning of _above the pubes_, but that it was in such a
situation as, in the ordinary position of the body, was above the
pubes. But Wakley assured the jury that it was impossible for any
stone to be _above_ the pubes, for there was a tendon to prevent it
which no force could overcome; and he affected to ridicule the idea
of there being anything unusual, any extraordinary shelf behind the
pubes, in which the stone could have been lodged. "Had there been
a shelf here," said he,--"had there been a crooked passage--had
there been a cavity, or any place for the deposition of the stone,
do you suppose that shelf would not have been produced? Had there
been any thing particular in the formation of the pubes, would they
not have cut out the man's bone as well as the bladder?" It is
probably impossible for any but medical men to appreciate fully
the impudent imposition--the fraud of this statement,--this knavish
artifice to mislead the jury. No attempt was made in any part of
Mr. Cooper's case to show that there was such malformation, or that
the stone was in the position which Mr. Wakley demonstrated it
could not occupy--_thus answering an argument which had never been
advanced_.
The following is a good specimen of sophistry and stupidity.
Finding it proved that there was no opening between the bladder
and rectum, Wakley wanted to make out that he never had said
otherwise, having stated the cellular membrane to be _lacerable_,
and therefore not _lacerated_. And then, forgetting the nature of
his argument, immediately added, "remember this; the gorget is not
as wide as the finger, and that it is not an uncommon thing for an
unskilful operator to drive the gorget in between the bladder and
rectum." Thus insinuating what had been proved to be false, and
what he had just argued, from the words of the libel, he could not
have meant.
_Coarse in language._--This scarcely requires illustration. But as
specimens, on the present occasion, of vulgar slang and miserable
attempts at wit, we may mention his talking of "hole and corner"
proceedings,--his comparing Sir James Scarlett to sour milk,
and which happy thought he has, in hand-bills pasted about the
town, converted into "Knight and Professor of Sour Milk,"--his
explanation of the term _bat_ as applied to surgeons, "because
they live in the dark, they suckle their young, and live in creaks
and crevices of old walls, hospitals, and dungeons, _thriving and
fattening on their own species_,"--his address to the "_gang_" of
hospital surgeons, whom he represented as wading "through blood
up to the neck,"--and lastly, his exclamations, several times
repeated, perhaps with _prophetic_ phrenzy, that he "would die in
a dungeon and expire in a ditch."
_Diabolical in tendency._--The general tendency of Wakley's
writings, and especially of his address to the Jury on this
occasion, so far as such ravings can have any influence, is to sow
distrust between men in every class of society and their medical
attendants; to poison the sources of public charity, and arrest
the hand of benevolence; to contract the relief afforded to human
suffering, leading the poor and uninformed to suppose themselves
the objects of cruel and wanton experiment, thus encouraging them
rather to suffer disease to run its course than seek relief in such
abodes of blood and horror as he most falsely represents our public
hospitals to be.
One of the first ebullitions of this demoniacal effort consisted
in representing to the Jury, which he did in two different parts
of his address, that the patient had been kept _bound_ during the
operation, as if some unusual degree of coercion had been employed.
"Yet, in opposition to the patient's cries--in opposition to his
repeated entreaties to be unbound, still the operator kept him upon
the table."--"Gentlemen," continued he, "I should like to know
upon what principle it was that the man was kept _bound_ upon the
table when he implored to be loosened. Was he not a free agent?"
And then he goes on to put into Mr. Cooper's mouth not only words,
but a sentiment he never uttered.--"No, no, (says the operator,)
my _reputation_ is concerned. You were brought here to have the
stone extracted, and extracted it shall and must be--_if you were
to die upon the table_." Unless Wakley was intoxicated we cannot
in any other manner account for an argument at once so absurd, so
unprofessional, and so malignant. It evidently excited no feeling
but that of disgust in the minds either of the Judge or the Jury.
The next paragraph to which we shall allude is a masterpiece
of hypocrisy--"Let me ask you (said he) what you have heard
respecting the miseries of the individual on whom the operation was
performed? Not one word has escaped the lips of the counsel on that
subject--not one word from the mouth of one of the witnesses. No,
gentlemen, they are hospital surgeons themselves, and they know too
well what the practices of our hospitals are, and the sufferings
_patients are in the habit of enduring at their hands_, to feel
for this man, or for any other man placed in a similar situation!"
Canting hypocrite! this from the man who in the very case before
us published his account of the patient's sufferings in the form
of a drama, mingled with low and scurrilous gibes. Mark also the
following--"Give such a verdict as shall satisfy the _poor_--as
will shew that men are not to go into offices of this sort where
the _poor are to be killed_, and that they shall not be at liberty
to wade and ride through blood up to their necks to eminence in
their profession. Ah! gentlemen, give such a verdict as shall
satisfy the _poor_!"
There is in the various paragraphs we have quoted, more deep-rooted
malice--more abandoned violation of the truth--more hypocrisy--and
more open outrage of common sense, decency, and feeling, than we
ever remember to have met with, even in the pages of the Lancet.
It is now quite obvious that Wakley, alarmed at the change which
has taken place in the estimation of his work within the last few
months, finds it necessary to adopt a new system; he therefore
throws off the mask, and openly declares himself the champion of
the ignorant and illiterate[22]--conjuring up to their imaginations
evils which do not exist--denouncing the medical profession as
one of blood and murder--medical men as "thriving and fattening on
their fellow-creatures"--and calling upon the "humane contributors
to our hospitals and infirmaries" to support him.
Why really now, if the times of political turbulence were to
return, and radical reform again to come into vogue, Cobbett
and Hunt would have a most valuable coadjutor; but as it is, we
almost think the sphere he has chosen is too limited for such a
genius. Humbug, to be successful, ought not to be very open to
detection; alleged abuses ought not to be of a kind which every
man can satisfy himself are entirely without foundation; and he
who professes disinterested motives ought not to begin by raising
a subscription for himself. We offer these few hints to Wakley, in
hopes they may be of use to him in his new career; above all, we
advise him to be sparing in protestations: there are some already
who look upon his sincerity with a suspicious eye; for although
it is no doubt true, that he would "rather die in a dungeon, and
expire in a ditch," than injure any man, yet somehow an idea has
got abroad, that his constant habits of lying and slandering are
not quite in keeping with these assertions. Nay, we have heard
of some even of the "humane contributors" to our charitable
institutions, who have been so unreasonable as to disbelieve all
Wakley's stories about the _cannibalism_ of hospital surgeons, and
to look upon the whole system of the Lancet as one of knavery and
imposition.