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.