SURGICAL REFORM.
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.