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.]