A most successful "wise woman" was Joanna Stephens, an ignorant and vulgar creature, who, just before the middle of the last century, proclaimed that she had discovered a sovereign remedy for a painful malady, which, like the smallpox, has become in the hands of modern surgery so manageable that ere long it will rank as little more than "a temporary discomfort." Joanna was a courageous woman. She went straightway to temporal peers, bishops, duchesses, and told them she was the woman for their money. They believed her, testified to the marvellous cures which she had effected, and allowed her to make use of their titles to awe sceptics into respect for her powers. Availing herself of this permission, she published books containing lists of her cures, backed up by letters from influential members of the nobility and gentry.
In the April number of the Gentleman's Magazine for the year 1738, one reads—"Mrs. Stephens has proposed to make her medicine publick, on consideration of £5000 to be raised by contribution and lodged with Mr. Drummond, banker; he has received since the 11th of this month about £500 on that account." By the end of the month the banker had in his hands £720 8s. 6d.
This generous offer was not made until the inventor of the nostrums had enriched herself by enormous fees drawn from the credulity of the rich of every sect and rank. The subscription to pay her the amount she demanded for her secret was taken up enthusiastically. Letters appeared in the Journals and Magazines, arguing that no humane or patriotic man could do otherwise than contribute to it. The movement was well whipped up by the press. The Bishop of Oxford gave £10 10s.; Bishop of Gloucester, £10 10s.; The Earl of Pembroke, £50; Countess of Deloraine, £5 5s.; Lady Betty Jermaine, £21; Lady Vere Beauclerc, £10 10s.; Earl of Godolphin, £100; Duchess of Gordon, £5 5s.: Viscount Lonsdale, £52 10s.; Duke of Rutland, £50; the Bishop of Salisbury, £25; Sir James Lowther, Bart., £25; Lord Cadogan, £2 2s.; Lord Cornwallis, £20; Duchess of Portland, £21; Earl of Clarendon, £25; Lord Lymington, £5; Duke of Leeds, £21; Lord Galloway, £30; General Churchill (Spot Ward's friend), £10 10s.; Countess of Huntingdon, £10 10s.; Hon. Frances Woodhouse, £10 10s.; Sir Thomas Lowther, Bart., £5 5s.; Duke of Richmond, £30; Sir George Saville, Bart., £5 5s.
These were only a few of the noble and distinguished dupes of Joanna Stephens. Mrs. Crowe, in her profound and philosophic work, "Spiritualism, and the Age we live in," informs us that "the solicitude" about the subject of table-turning "displayed by many persons in high places, is the best possible sign of the times; and it is one from which she herself hopes that the period is arrived when we shall receive further help from God." Hadn't Joanna Stephens reason to think that the period had arrived when she and her remedial system would receive further help from God? What would not Read (we do not mean the empiric oculist knighted by Queen Anne, but the cancer quack of our own time) give to have such a list of aristocratic supporters? What would not Mrs. Doctor Goss (who in this year, 1861, boasts of the patronage of "ladies of the highest distinction") give for a similar roll of adherents?
The agitation, however, for a public subscription for Joanna Stephens was not so successful as her patrician supporters anticipated. They succeeded in collecting £1356 3s. But Joanna stood out: her secret should not go for less than £5000. "No pay, no cure!" was her cry. The next thing her friends did was to apply to Parliament for the required sum—and, positively, their request was granted. The nation, out of its taxes, paid what the individuals of its wealthy classes refused to subscribe. A commission was appointed by Parliament, that gravely inquired into the particulars of the cures alleged to be performed by Joanna Stephens; and, finding the evidence in favour of the lady unexceptionable, they awarded her the following certificate, which ought to be preserved to all ages as a valuable example of senatorial wisdom:—
"The Certificate required by the Act of Parliament.
March 5, 1739.
"We, whose names are underwritten, being the major part of the Justices appointed by an Act of Parliament, entitled, 'An Act for providing a Reward to Joanna Stephens, upon proper discovery to be made by her, for the use of the Publick, of the Medicines prepared by her— —' —do certify, that the said Joanna Stephens did, with all convenient speed after the passing of the said Act, make a discovery to our satisfaction, for the use of the publick, of the said medicines, and of her method of preparing the same; and that we have examined the said medicines, and of her method of preparing of the same, and are convinced by experiment of the Utility, Efficacy, and Dissolving Power thereof.
When such men as Cheselden, Hawkins, and Sharp could sign such a certificate, we need feel no surprise at the conduct of Dr. Nesbit and Dr. Pellet (Mead's early friend, who rose to be president of the College of Physicians). These two gentlemen, who were on the commission, having some scruples about the words "dissolving power," gave separate testimonials in favour of the medicines. St. John Long's cause, it may be remembered, was advocated by Dr. Ramadge, a Fellow of the College.
The country paid its money, and obtained Joanna's prescriptions. Here is a portion of the lady's statement:—
"A full Discovery of the Medicines given by me, Joanna Stephens, and a particular account of my method of preparing and giving the same.