A meeting was held yesterday evening at the Freemasons' Tavern, in
pursuance of an advertisement calling on the "Friends of Surgical
Reform, the Supporters of a free Medical Press, and the humane
Contributors to our Hospitals and Infirmaries," to meet there,
in order to adopt measures for presenting Mr. Wakley, the Editor
of the Lancet, with some decided mark of their approval of his
spirited conduct, in his late trial in the Court of King's Bench,
at the suit of Mr. Bransby Cooper, and of the principles which he
so powerfully advocated on that occasion.
[Mr. Patey, who was called to the chair, stated the object of the
meeting; but as his speech was rather long, and contained nothing
of the least interest, we omit it.]
_Mr. Waller_, in proposing the first resolution, adverted to the
terms of the advertisement, and remarked that the question for
them was not whether they would support Cooper against Wakley, or
Wakley against Cooper; but whether they would have a free medical
press or not--(cheers). Every body must admit that there was
only one medical publication that was entitled to be considered
free--only one that dared to tell the truth. Another had been
attempted to be set up against it, but this wretched rival was
gagged and manacled, and its reports were only a medium which
distorted truth, and were almost unintelligible. It was not,
however, to support any particular man, or publication, that he
came to that meeting, but to support the general cause in which
they were all interested. He concluded by moving, as the first
resolution, that "the best interests of the medical profession and
of the public are identified with the cause of medical and surgical
reform; and that Mr. Wakley, as Editor of the Lancet, having given
the first impulse to that cause, and having subsequently advocated
it with undeviating firmness and fidelity, is entitled to the
cordial thanks and support of this meeting."
_Mr. Mills_ seconded the resolution.
_Dr. Shiel_ said this was an important meeting, in his opinion;
for, if this resolution were passed, it would identify the medical
profession with the Editor of the Lancet. If the principle
embodied in that resolution went forth to the world, it would be
attended with consequences deeply injurious to the profession.
He knew neither Mr. Bransby Cooper nor Sir Astley, and therefore
he was perfectly impartial. The first question was, how far the
medical press was conducted with advantage to medical science and
the members of the profession. Now he contended, but with great
respect, and disclaiming all personal hostility, that the Lancet
had nowise contributed to the progress of medical science or the
improvement of the profession--(loud hissing, and some cheers).
He trusted that the meeting had not been got up by a few of the
friends of Mr. Wakley, and he was sure that that gentleman was
too respectable and too dignified in his proper person to need
any such attempt--(applause). He trusted that the meeting was
before the British public to ascertain how far the Lancet was
useful or advantageous to medical science; and he hoped that,
however partial the gentlemen present might be to Mr. Wakley, they
would be governed in what they should do by the real interests of
science--(hear, hear). The question was one of great interest; for
it was one that embraced not only the freedom of the press but the
advancement of medical science. With respect to the freedom of the
press, they lived in a country where the law always maintained
that principle. When Mr. Abernethy had applied for an injunction
against the Lancet, Lord Eldon said that there could be no doubt
that the Lancet was a most useful publication--(applause). He did
not know whether that observation had been brought forward at the
late trial; but taking the case--what was it? It appeared that the
operation was one of peculiar difficulty, as stated upon oath by
some of the most experienced surgeons of the day. This operation
was laid hold of by the Lancet, and published not as a medical but
as a tragical performance, in which all persons without science
or knowledge were appealed to, and no opportunity afforded to Mr.
Cooper to vindicate himself. Here, then, was a low and pitiful
attempt made through the medium of malice and calumny (loud hisses
and uproar). Here was a rude and pitiful attempt by malice and
calumny (renewed signs of disapprobation). And yet it was contended
that this had advanced the medical profession. The evidence on the
trial went to shew that the dangers by which the operator had been
surrounded were not small, and that there was no just reason to
accuse him of unskilfulness in what he did; and was it then to be
said, in the face of the British public, that a Meeting had been
held at the Freemasons' Tavern to offer praise and reward to the
individual whose conduct had, by the verdict of the Jury, been
stamped with the accusation of untruth (hear, hear! and hisses)?
He would not deny that there was a degree of talent displayed in
the Lancet; but neither could it be denied that it was a public
depredator by means of reports surreptitiously obtained; and the
title of "literary raven," which had been applied by Sir James
Scarlett, appeared to him to truly depict its character (great
hisses and uproar). Was it to be contended that any one had a right
to come into a private lecture-room, and catch up all he could
hear, and then to publish what he had thus surreptitiously and
fraudulently obtained (immense uproar and hisses)? As far as the
medical interest was concerned, he looked upon the Lancet as one of
the most injurious publications that had ever appeared (hisses).
All the best writers on the subject had dwelt with peculiar
emphasis on the necessity of secrecy among the members of the
profession, but the Lancet broke through this good rule, and made
public whatever came within its notice; and he had no doubt that
if it could get at the cases that occurred in private practice, it
would give them without any scruple (uproar).
The _Chairman_ begged to remind the speaker that at all events Mr.
Wakley had not as yet done so.
_Dr. Shiel._--I am arguing on the principle which appears to
actuate Mr. Wakley.
_Mr. John Elliot_ rose to order. He could not allow Dr. Shiel to be
going upon suppositions; the thing that he supposed had never been
done.
_Dr. Shiel_ was sure that whatever turn might be given to the
subject in England, that at all events the conclusions that the
Meeting appeared to be coming to would be resisted abroad. The
weight of Sir Astley Cooper's name abroad would overpower any
such attempt, and, in fact, would render it contemptible; so that
any attempt to prop up so low, pitiful, and mean an attack, must
inevitably be attended with disgraceful failure (hisses).
A gentleman observed, that he was much surprised at what had fallen
from Dr. Shiel. He had been induced to suppose that the Lancet
possessed talent, as he had heard it praised in so many directions,
and he certainly had never heard till that evening that it was
only to be found in the hands of the illiterate (hear, hear! and
a laugh). He had always understood that it was only destined for
the use of students and other members of the profession, and that
it was likely to be of great use in reforming the abuses of the
medical practice (hear, hear! and cries of "So it will!"). For his
own part, he was glad that medical men were occasionally cut up,
because when they did what was wrong it was proper that they should
be told of it; and when they did what was right, it added a fresh
stimulus to their exertions (applause).
_Mr. Thomas_ observed, that he had not intended to say any thing at
the present meeting; but as Dr. Shiel, in the course of his speech,
had thought proper to make some remarks tending to calumniate Mr.
Wakley's witnesses on the trial, of which he was one, he felt
called upon to say a few words (hear, hear!). Dr. Shiel seemed to
consider them all as the mere scum of the earth--as a miserable
band, collected together to support Mr. Wakley, whatever might
be the consequence; as though he was desirous of going the whole
length of the Medical Gazette, which stigmatised them for what it
called "their deep-laid contrivances--their rankling enmities, and
their bitter revenge." For himself he could say, that it was not
till the evening previous to the trial that he had been supœnaed,
and that he had previous to that time never seen Mr. Wakley.
_Dr. Shiel_ said that he could not have alluded to the gentleman
who was speaking, as he did not even know his name.
_Mr. Thomas_ then went on to observe, that as Dr. Shiel appeared
to be the advocate of the opposite party, he also supposed that he
was a contributor to the aristocratical (Medical) Gazette ("No,
no!" from Dr. Shiel). If he were not, at all events he had put
forward ideas that were quite consonant to the sentiments expressed
in that Journal. In giving his testimony, he had not spoken of the
instruments employed in the operation, but of his own impression
on the subject, having been present thirty-five minutes; and that
impression certainly was, that the operation had been performed in
a bungling and unscientific manner (loud applause, mingled with
hisses). Was he then, because he happened to be a witness on the
occasion, to be put down, pell-mell, by the unfounded imputations
of any one? The highly-principled, honourable-minded Medical
Gazette, that had determined never to admit any personalities, had
loaded Mr. Wakley and Mr. Lambert with all sorts of abuse. Was
this what they intended to call acting on principle (applause,
and cries of "No, no!")? He certainly had heard that Mr. B.
Cooper was an amiable man in private life; but what had that
to do with the question at issue? What had they to do with the
private character of a man in a public office (cheers)? Surely the
witnesses of Mr. Wakley were as competent to speak of the manner
in which the operation was performed as those who had not been
present (applause); and as he had seen many operations performed
he conceived that he was a competent judge of the skill of the
operator (applause).
A gentleman, who appeared to be a student, thought that the
introduction of any attack upon the witnesses, or indeed of
anything that occurred at the trial, was irrelevant (hear,
hear!). The way to answer a speaker was not by hisses, but by
disproving his arguments and rebutting his facts (applause). If
questions were to be settled merely by strength of lungs, he
was afraid that instead of the right side prevailing, success
would uniformly attend those whose physical powers probably much
exceeded their mental (laughter and applause). He could not agree
with the gentleman who had stated that the law of England was
the protector of the freedom of the Press; for it was well known
that the Judges had decided, over and over again, that truth was
a libel (applause). It was only the vehicle that conveyed public
sentiment, and not the force that impelled it forward. He was
convinced that any attempt to connect medical reform with Mr.
Wakley should be studiously avoided and disclaimed. As a friend of
free discussion in every case, and anxious to uphold the principle,
whatever he might think of the instrument, he intended to propose,
as an Amendment, "That the latter part of the Resolution, relating
to Mr. Wakley, should be omitted." This would save the cause of
medical reform from being identified with Mr. Wakley, of whose
impartiality he would give a specimen. In the last number of the
Lancet, the report of the late trial was given from the Times, but
with a remarkable omission. The Lord Chief Justice had rebuked
one of the defendant's witnesses for not answering the questions
in a straightforward manner, and this passage was omitted. If Mr.
Wakley would do this on such an occasion, would he be more candid
when the public eye was less upon him? He, therefore, wished to
have the question of medical reform kept separate from Mr. Wakley
individually. The first part of the Resolution would be carried
without a dissenting voice, as on that principle they were all
agreed, whatever they might think of the conduct of individuals.
[One or two persons then made speeches for or against the
amendment; which was negatived, and the original motion carried.]
_Mr. Hensley_ then, after observing that Mr. Wakley's conduct
was highly praiseworthy, because it tended in every way to the
benefit of humanity, moved the second Resolution, which was to the
following effect:--
"That the purposes for which the Hospitals and Infirmaries of
the Metropolis were founded, and that the views of the humane
contributors to their funds, are materially promoted by the
weekly publication of reports detailing the medical and surgical
treatment of the unfortunate patients; and that Mr. Wakley having
originated the practice of publishing Hospital Reports, has
conferred important benefits on Medical Science, and on the cause
of humanity."
The resolution was then carried unanimously.
_Mr. John Elliott_, on moving the third resolution, said that he
did not come there to interfere in the quarrels of Wakley and
Cooper. They had acknowledged that Mr. Wakley's exertions had been
very conducive to medical reform, by the last resolution they
had passed. Indeed, there could be no doubt that he had greatly
served the cause of humanity, by preventing idleness on the part of
medical persons, and compelling attention to the poor placed under
their care. It was his opinion that the editor of the Lancet ought
to be indemnified for the whole expense entailed on him by the
late trial, including the damages awarded against him. This would
not be a private subscription, like Brodie's, but one open to the
world, and not to be questioned in a court of justice. He would not
support Mr. Wakley if he had attacked private character; but he
would, as the editor of the Lancet and the representative of the
medical free press. He concluded by moving--
"That the independent and impartial principles on which the Lancet
was first established, have been preserved by Mr. Wakley at all
risks; and as it was acknowledged at the late trial, that the
legal expenses of his opponents on another occasion have been
defrayed by certain hospital physicians and surgeons[23], it is
farther resolved, that a subscription be opened for the purpose of
defraying the expenses of the late action."
[Dr. Shiel here spoke very strongly against entering into a
subscription--while some spoke in its favour.]
A discussion then arose about the question of whether an account
of a second operation for lithotomy by Mr. Cooper (in which he had
been successful) had been sent to Mr. Wakley? It was stated that
such was the case, but as the action for the present libel was then
commenced, _Mr. Wakley thought that he perceived something in that
second report that might tend to aggravate the damages, and which,
at the same time, would be farther injurious to Mr. B. Cooper_.
The third resolution was then carried by an immense majority, only
five hands being held up against it.
_Mr. Evans_ moved, "That the statement of professional facts in an
unprofessional form, such as the dramatic instead of the narrative,
is highly reprehensible in the individual, and detrimental to the
best interests of science."
This resolution, after some turbulent discussion, was withdrawn.
_Mr. J. L. Stevens_ then moved, as the fourth resolution, that "In
accordance with the feelings this meeting has expressed, Mr. Wakley
be invited to attend a Public Dinner, and that a Committee be
forthwith nominated to arrange the same."
_Mr. Rogers_ seconded the resolution, and it was carried
unanimously.
The members of the committee were then named, and power given to
them to add to their number.--The chairman then vacated his office,
and the meeting separated.--_Morning Chronicle, Wednesday._
In the course of the evening, the conduct of one of the speakers
gave for a short time an amusing turn to the discussion, which for
a great part had appeared to many extremely dry and tedious. The
gentleman in question, (not a medical man), in order to show the
opinion he had entertained of the object of the meeting, proposed
to read for the audience a letter which he himself had written to
the chairman of the committee, asking permission to attend. He
began, but he had scarcely got through a few words when he declared
he was not able to make out his own writing, and requested the
chairman to assist him. The chairman made the attempt, but was not
more successful. Another gentleman then undertook the task, but
with no better effect. The audience received each unsuccessful
effort with loud laughter, which so much annoyed the writer that he
took back the letter, and again tried to go through with it, but
not being able to make it out, he proposed to read for the meeting
two letters which he wrote on the same subject to the editor of a
Sunday paper. (Loud laughter followed this proposition, which was
increased, when, on an attempt to read one of them, he had no more
success than before.) The gentleman, after complaining of the want
of courtesy in the meeting, resumed his seat, declaring that he
would give the letters to the reporters.--_Times, Wednesday._