116

altogether, I can sincerely declare that this controversy has beenexceedingly distasteful to me. I will further add that themisunderstanding between the committee and Mr. Gay wasto me, during the whole of its continuance, a source of deepregret and much anxiety. When I state that I have a greatrepugnance to be engaged in professional disputes, I trust thatthe declaration will have full weight with all those of myprofessional brethren who have been induced by misrepre-sentations to form a contrary opinion.

Yours, very obediently,THOMAS WAKLEY, Jun.

Guilford-street, Russell-square, Jan. 26th, 1854.THOMAS WAKLEY, Jun.

THE HANOVER-SQUARE MEETING.

FREDERICK JAMES GANT.Lecturer on Anatomy and Physiology, Medical College,

Royal Free Hospital.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Mr. G. B. Childs, on the 18th inst., publicly stated, ata meeting of the medical profession, he had been informed ofmy having said, some five months since, that Mr. Gay was tobe dismissed from his office as surgeon of the Royal FreeHospital, and I elected in his place. I immediately wrote toMr. Childs, requesting him to supply me with the name ofhis informant. In reply, Mr. Childs stated, he would onlycomply with my request, provided I pledged him my honourto receive the information in confidence.

Comgnent on such a proceeding is unnecessary.I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

FREDERICK JAMES GANT.Lecturer on Anatomy and Physiology, ’Medical College,

Royal Free Hospital.Old Cavendish-street, Cavendish-square, Jan. 23rd, 1854.

THE ANTI-LANCET CONSPIRACY AND THE

HANOVER-SQUARE MEETING.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Some two or three years ago I " finished" my educa-tion at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and since that period, as Ihave been actively, if not very remuneratively, engaged in thehard work and daily fatigue of country practice, I have naturallytaken but scant interest in medical gossip, and had but smallopportunities of participating or taking my share in publicdiscussions. Circumstances, however, of a strictly privatenature very lately recalled me to the metropolis; and as onmy arrival I quickly resorted to my whilom Alma Mater, Idiscovered myself in a few days deeply involved, withouteither preparation or forethought in the matter, in de-nouncement of the enemies of Mr. Gay, incited by thepassionate appeals and invectives of those around me. Theschool of St. Bartholomew’s was asserted to be in a ferment,and the pupils were openly declared as very desirous, if theaeachers permitted it, of giving utterance to ’’ very strongfeelings." The Free Hospital crisis was in everybody’s mouth.I heard nothing but the grossest fabrications and the bit-terest inuendoes. If any one a little too far-sighted to bethe blind dupe or the cowardly slave of the passions of themoment, were to assert, in a candid tone, that he thoughtperhaps we had better reflect more on the matter, and thatmuch of what was openly stated about that hospital mightprove, upon a strict investigation, to be partial and one-sided andinterested assertions, -mere freaks of Rumour with her thou- ’,sand tongues,—such a man was at once stigmatised as a Irenegade from the cause; the noblest character was imme-diately and wilfully aspersed, and the purest intentions cruellymaligned. Emissary of THE LANCET, paid employée, spy,villain, and numerous other equally elegant expressions, werefreely lavished upon -all who possessed the moral comage toset their faces against the mad infatuation. The ejected wasan injured man. -Conscious of his own integrity, of his single-ness of purpose, of the innocence of his intentions, and thepurity of his motives; what, though he allowed his colleaguesto be sneered at in the most public manner, though heimpugned their characters, and asserted that they used thehospital to which he belonged for "purposes of their own;"though he breathed contumely upon them behind their backs,all the while that before their eyes he appeared to them in4. constant and friendly communication;" though he asserts, orallows it to be asserted, not only without contradiction, butwith very evident satisfaction and concurrence, -jeering atand completely ignoring the achievements and reputations ofhis colleagues,—that the ’’ position the hospital had assumedwas solely owing to his exertions," and that but for "hisrepute, acquired by long labour and professional attainments,

the Royal Free Hospital would have been unknown ;" andthat, " unlike other professional men, he is indebted in no wayto the hospital itself for his celebrity; on the contrary, thatthe hospital owes everything as a surgical arena to his skilland enterprise:" though, I say, Mr. Gay had done all this,can any upright or honourable man for one moment thereforeconceive that he has not, in his own language, done every-thing in his power, " since the period of his connexion withthe hospital, as was in his opinion best calculated to pro-mote its usefulness and general reputation?" Or will any onebe so churlish and unreasonable as to suppose Mr. Gay canhave given either his colleagues or the world cause of offence"when he assures us in the frankest manner and with the mostcandid tone that " he is not conscious, either intentionally orunintentionally, of having done anything which could havegiven occasion to an unfavourable impression?" It does notmatter that Mr. Gay’s colleagues are quietly placed " on theshelf;" it is of no consequence that he is represented, with4 unjustifiable boldness" as the great magnate of his hos-pital, and that he should be advertised in public in terms ofthe most fulsome eulogy and exaggerated encomium, as " aman whose professional attainments and career have gainedfor him a wide-spread reputation." He will not take " wilfuloffence" at such proceedings as these; and if his colleagues feel"aggrieved," he is only "too happy to consult with themupon the best means of remedying the mischief which maybe apprehended from such disreputable conduct;" or if thehospital committee consider that his scandalous egotism de-mand reprobation, why Mr. Gay then sincerely regrets " thatanything should have appeared in the course of his biographythat was calculated to arouse" feelings of indignation andcontempt, and for the first time " feels most sincerely thathis merits have been overrated, and the labours of his col-leagues most unpardonably overlooked !"

Sir, "some men inherit greatness, some men achieve great-ness, and some men have greatness thrust vpon them." So itis with Mr. Gay. Without the possession of a single qualifica-tion that would of itself have conferred any endurable lustreon his name,-unadorned by nature with those qualities thatdemand admiration or win esteem,-pursuing a line of conductwhich must be denounced as reprehensible, and asserted to bebeneath professional dignity,-instead of being visited withcondign punishment by his professional brethren, and exhibitedto public gaze as a man who had not raised the status of anhospital surgeon,—this gentleman all at once finds himself anobject of notoriety, and must be almost abashed at the laurelsthat are showered upon him. Just when the committee ofthe hospital to which he belonged, having impartially andalmost kindly reflected on his conduct, had arrived with muchregret at a very inevitable conclusion-viz., that of finally dis-missing Mr. Gay from their service, then it is that a few

unprincipled persons perceive that some notoriety and eclât

might be coined out of the affair, and in the most disinterestedmanner prevail over the coy reluctance and bashful maidengrace with which Mr. Gay received at first their friendly over-tures, and so he now comes before the public as an injured man.The few unprincipled persons to whom I have alluded have

exposed their shallow tricks to me, and it is for this reasonthat I now address you. As I recently mentioned, a very fewdays since, there was a very powerful impression upon mymind that extreme injustice had been inflicted upon an hos-pital surgeon, and that it behoved every one to take up hiscause. Circumstances, however, have induced me to changethis opinion, and it is my earnest desire in this communicationto disenchant others from the erroneous and mischievous pre-possessions that I myself so recently entertained. When Mr.

Gay’s dismissal from the Royal Free Hospital was first mooteclabout St. Bartholomew’s, and the rumour in circulation wasascertained to be correct, two persons made themselves espe-cially conspicuous, on account of the extremely violent opinionsthey expressed. In a day or two they whispered about theschool, that Mr. Gay had been treated in an infamous manner,and that very shortly a meeting of his friends would be con-vened to ascertain whether his removal from his post was notan illegal act.

Well, when the meeting of Mr. Gay’s friends was held,the two persons to whom I allude took a very conspicuouspart in their sympathy for Mr, Gay. One made an " eloquentspeech," stigmatised the conduct of the hospital committeethat dismissed him from their service, and denounced itas "abominable"—a. pretty phrase that is italicized in thezealous columns of a contemporary—at the same time that heproposed a resolution that their conduct was "insulting,"while the other person was proposed and accepted as Secretary

117

to a sort of committee, into which the more officious of Mr. of which our land can boast? The mere supposition casts

Gay’s friends proceeded to enrol themselves. The first act of a ridicule upon Mr. Coote. But I should not be doing fullthe new Secretary is rather a.lwrming! It appears that some justice to him if I passed over his merits thus superficially.one present at the meeting asked if Mr. Gay’s dismissal was a This gentleman told the meeting with considerable self-

legal proceeding, and was of course answered in the affirma- possession, that he " would not expatiate at any length on thetive, while another gentleman inquired whether it would not practice of writing biographies—a, system he believed to bebe better to "try the question by the proper legal tribunals of fraught with great mischief." Is Mr. Coote himself then sothe country," and this was considered a matter to be referred free from the contagion and taint 0-’- autobiography? Has histo the " great meeting" that was proposed for a future day. memoir—brief as it is—never embellished any respectable pages?These queries appear intelligible enough; but what does the When the scanty sketch of him wa_.s published—deficient of a,

versatile and audacious secretary do? why he jumbles the portrait, for the biographer has sufficient discernment to avoidseveral queries together and publishes them as a cleliberate reso- unremunerative puffs-did lie submit to his new-born honourslution upon what the meeting had unanimously agreed. So, with modest dignity? or did he " denounce" the editor in anto my horror, upon Jan. 17th, I read this impudent announce- "eloquent" speech? Oh! but Mr. Coote further states, thatment in The Times:—"The following resolution was put and much cannot be said for the morality of the institution fromcarried unanimously: ’That in the opinion of this meeting which Mr. Gay has just been removed"! Why, Sir, for a.

it is highly desirable that Mr. Gay should take immediate gentleman such as this to talk about public morality is perfectlysteps to ascertain in how far his dismissal from the Royal Free ridiculous.Hospital was legal, with a view of trying the question in a The third gentleman that came forward to solicit our noticecourt of law; and that endeavours should be made to induce is a Mr. Webber. This trustworthy personage assured thethe profession to exonerate Mr. Gay from the expenses of such meeting that he was not going to be "mealy-mouthed." Aproceedings.’ " very gratuitous statement to emanate from such an authority.

Sir, in all your experience of public life, did you ever He then launched out into quite an excess of pointless sarcasms,witness a piece of more unparalleled impertinence and gross vulgar criticisms, and strange invectives. Amongst otherprevarication? Now, the result of the preliminary meeting of choice phrases, Mr. Webber stated, that "he did not envy-Mr. Gay’s friends was, that they decided to use every exertion either the editor of a publication, or any other person, whoin their power to assemble, on the 18th inst., the " largest sought to flourish upon the ruin of his fellow man." Thismeeting of the profession ever held in the metropolis." To sentiment, the papers assert, receive d great applause from thaquote the pompous declamation of their paid scribe,-this meeting, and the speaker then pu. t it to the profession,meeting was convened by public advertisement, and was open whether they would any longer encourage the serpent thatto every medical man. It was an appeal to a generous public they had nurtured in their bosoms, when it was in their powerspirit in the members of this noble profession, and showed to withdraw its sting?" Sir, I also publicly ask the medicalthat when one of their number had suffered from injustice, the profession whether they will any longer encourage this serpentwhole body rose as one man to redress the injury. With your when it is in their power utterly to destroy him? Are Mr.kind permission I will analyze the meeting in more detail. Webber’s antecedents known to the profession ? Did all whoThe proceedings began by the secretary producing a packet cheered so exuberantly at certain jportions of his harangue,

of letters, half a dozen of which he read; and it was an object know the character of the man wh-om they thus enrapturedof remark amongst many, as a curious circumstance, that out with their confidence? Mr. Webber, however, is a bold man;of those selected to be brought before the meeting, Dr. J. his early antecedents he may hope are forgotten; the acts ofRisdon Bennett’s was the only name of any note that bespoke former days blotted from recollection ; and he probably, likesympathy with the cause. But curiosity does not terminate myself, does not know which to acl-raire most, his Ycarrzozctlthere. The meeting was asserted by the Committee to be a -st7-atage?ib or his Norwich audacity!purely public one, which was represented to express the A fourth individual completes the picture—Mr. G. Ross.actual feeling and exact opinion of the medical profession upon Sir, this person is so much beneath criticism, that it would beMr. Gay’s conduct. Yet by far the greater number of persons doing him too much honour to holdl1illl up to contempt, and Iassembled last week, at the Hanover-square Rooms, came have not a doubt, if I were to do so, he would write to methere incited to do so by an impertinent appeal which Mr. a letter full of grateful acknowledgments. By receiving, how-Gay had made to each one individually. The remainder were ever, this buffoon’s co-operation, Mr. Gay’s committee havemere medical students. St. Bartholomew’s alone furnished, I degraded the "great meeting," as it is absurdly termed, intobelieve, its quota of more than a hundred young men. Did a mere advertisement for the exhibition of the gross conduct ofthese fairly and faithfully represent the just and actual feeling a pitiable churl. To let such a man as this address the meetingof the medical profession? Did they not rather come urged was equivalent, in my mind, to the piablic proffer of a premiumand incited to do so by the manoeuvres of a clique, and the for insolent effrontery, execrable falsehood, and detestable-base partisans of a faction? Sir, look now at the persons who presumption. It is, however, only just to the committeetook part in the discussion. Let us discover what claims the to say that they most properly permitted him to speak imme-late assemblage in the Hanover-square Rooms, of medical diately after Mr. Webber. Oh, Sir-, for the pen of Swift topupils, and Mr. Gay’s personal friends, can put forward to describe in all minuteness the impel1etrable grossness of thisbear out, with even the shadow of evidence the boast that it pitiable braggart! The poor chairman appeared so much amazedconstituted a great meeting of the medical profession. at Mr. Ross’s over-powerful and discordant tones, that he letIn the first place, who was the gentleman that was so him wander at will from an envenomed diatribe upon the e

unanimously appointed secretary to Mr. Gay’s committee? editor of THE LANCET into an elegant disquisition upon "pa,r-What position does he hold amongst his professional brethren? boiled cabbages and castrated cats." However, Dr. CoplandThis secretary is a 3fr. Harvey Ludlow, a young man who in a short time recovered himself sufficiently to stop, arl-dwas formerly educated at the Blue-coat School, and thence the approbation of the meeting, a few of the vulgar rhodo-transferred to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. He is at present montades of this platform numskull, and Mr. Ross concludedquite a juvenile personage, notorious for the impudence of his an imbecile speech by bursting into a requiem upon a latelybearing, the audacity of his opinions, aud the silly recklessness deceased practitioner. Sir, is it not. indeed, immortality toof his statements. He is the colleague of Mr. Borlase Childs have one’s funeral oration pronounced in the elegant and nun-at a little dispensary in the City, and through that gentleman’s cupative rhetoric of this platform clown ? .?aid got installed into his present post. Mr. Ludlow I hear Sir, will your readers reflect on the gross injury which willdescribes himself as a person who has " soared upon the wings thus be inflicted upon medical practitioners ? Where, it willof industry to that height of power which now enables him, justly be asked is the unanimity of the profession in thislike another Napoleon, to lead an army of submissive subalterns matter ? Letters have been sent round to all gentlemenover the Alps of celebrity!" connected with every public institution, whether large or

The next person who attracts attention is Mr. Holmes Coote, small, in every province, in every to«-n, and in every hamletwho says that "this is the critical moment of his professional of this empire; inflammatory appeals have been made to ourlife," because it has been asserted over and over again that he generosity, fiery demonstrations havo been incited amongstrepresents the feeling of the officers and of the school of St. students, and to a vast number of medical men residing inBartholomew’s Hospital. That he does so is far from the London Mr. Gay has taken the trouble to appeal personally.truth; for Mr. Coote is actually quite disconnected with Yet what has been the termination of the crisis ? Where arethe hospital, and even in the medical school his appointment the illustrious and the great, the élite and the far-famed in theis not one either of much emolument or position. Is this profession ? Have they come forward to support Mr. Gay? Heperson in a position to represent all the intelligence memorialised the Council of the Royal College of Sargeons ; howand all the gemus, all the prestige and all the influence of did it respond to his passionate application? ? The appeal wone of the most time-honoured and illustrious institutions merely passed by without notice or comment. He then appe

118

again to his professional brethren in all parts of his native land ;what has been the result of that appeal ? Why, that a largenumber of uninfluential persons-a meeting composed of medicalpupils and personal friends-have assembled together andpassed a series of resolutions and proposed a subscription list!Of what further result can the late meeting boast ? Who werethe more prominent of the speakers I have endeavoured toshow; their reasons for coming forward are pretty evident.They desired a notoriety that they would gain by no othermeans, and they therefore came forward in support of a causethat is worthily and appropriately aided by impudent bra-vados and domineering impertinence.

Sir, personal criticisms I could not to a certain extentrefrain from introducing in the present communication; thenecessities of the subject forced them upon me. I hope, how-ever, that I have dealt with my heroes in a generous spirit.It was my desire to enter more at length into what I haveascertained are the actual causes of Mr. Gay’s dismissal, andto have inquired how far his conduct has been calculated tosupport the position that he desires to maintain amongst hisprofessional brethren; but such considerations I must defer toanother opportunity. As I have stated to you, Sir, I was atfirst a sincere partisan of Mr. Gay, but I have had oppor-tunities and reasons for altering my opi?lions. All the insolentabuse, all the impertinent invective, all the despicable slander,all the puerile declamation that has been lavished upon theEditor of THE LANCET, he can well afford to treat with scornand contumely, conscious of his own rectitude, and secure inthe approval of the upright and the just.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,London, Jan. 1854. SPECTATOR.

THE VACCINATION EXTENSION ACT.

FREDERICK CHARLES JONES, M.D.

. To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—At page 57 of THE LANCET of January 14, appears aletter from W. H. Borham, a practitioner "recently estab-lished," i_psissimct verba, who takes upon himself to put the wholeprofession to rights at once. But softly Mr. Borham ; a little imore modesty, a little more knowledge, a little more attentionto Lord Lyttelton’s reply, would have at once irrefragablyproved that others beside yourself have bestirred themselvesin modes eciually, in their ideas, likely to be attended withsuccess-to wit, the authors of the " several suggestions." The

gentlemen resident in the Union in which Lord Lytteltonpresides, have all been appointed in conformity with the viewsclaimed as Mr. Borham’s own. I myself brought forward amotion, seconded by Mr. Charles Brady, in the St. Saviour’sUnion, having exactly the same object in view. A similarone was put upon record in St. George’s, and in several of thecounty unions it is virtually the law. " Staggered to hear hislordship say that Mine is the only suggestion he has receivedfor the amendment of the Vaccination Act’ "! Why, Sir, it isthe unanimous opinion of the medical profession (with the ex-ception here and there of a union surgeon holding the appoint-ment of district vaccinator) that, were the law altered in thisrespect, the Act would be perfect. At the risk of being tediousI beg to put Mr. Borham’s remarks and Lord Lyttelton’sreply side by side :-"I am staggered to hear his

B " I’o2ir suggestion is the

lordship say that mine ’is al- same as has been rtcade to mEmost the only suggestion he from several quarters, and i.has received for the amend-

almost the only one I have

ment of the Vaccination Act.’ " received for the amendment othe Vaccination Act."

Does Mr. Borham require to again study Lindley Murray irorder to comprehend the construction of Lord Lyttelton’sreply’?

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,FREDERICK CHARLES JONES, M.D.

Blackfriars-road, January, 1854.

ALLEGED PROFESSIONAL TRICKERY.

THE following is an extract from a letter received from Mr.F. Russell Hall, of Cambridge. Mr. Hall’s communication isof too lengthy a nature to admit of its insertion in the presentnumber. ]I was not a little astonished at seeing, this morning, in

your journal of January 21st, a malicious attack upon mycharacter by an Enemy to Humbug,’ headed ProfessionalTrickery.’

" In answer to this, I have only to say, that I deny in totothe authorship of the paragraph which he quotes from the

’Medical Directory.’ I also nzost emphatically deny that Icaused anything of the kind to be inserted, or that I was awaresuch c statement had been sent, having a special reason formaking no return this year. Therefore, so far as I am con-cerned, the injury attempted to be inflicted upon me is unjustin the extreme, and only due to the vilest quack in creation.’’

THE ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL.

Extract from the Draft Report of the Committee of Management.YOUR Committee would direct especial attention to the ad-

mission made by Mr. Gay, at the general meeting of Governors,held on the 30th of December last. After that surprising ac-knowledgment had been uttered, it became quite impossible tomisapprehend the feelings by which Mr. Gay’s conduct had beenprompted. His unguarded declaration is fatal to all conjecture,and it supplies an ample illustration of the difficult duty that theCommittee had been obliged to discharge. There were mem-bers of that body present at the general meeting of the Go-vernors on the 30th ult., who even then entertained an earnesthope that Mr. Gay would candidly and unreservedly renounceand disclaim the libels on the hospital and on his colleaguesthat had appeared in his own biography. Great and poignant,however, was their disappointment when they heard him giveexpression to the following words : " I did not CHOOSE to tellthe Editor of the paper that he was WRONG in what he hadwritten."

Thus, fortunately, evidence of the obdurately hostile feelingsentertained by Mr. Gay against the hospital and his colleagueswas delivered from his own lips at a most critical juncture, andwas almost instantly followed by a righteous judgment. Onlya few moments previous to the utterance of this extraordinaryadmission of contumacy, Mr. Gay had declared " that he hadevery wish to conciliate." Why, then, did he sanction, by hissilence, during a period of six months, the libellous imputationsupon the hospital and his colleagues, published in his own me-moir, and partly written by himself ? The discreditable answeris furnished by the exclamation, " I did not choose to tell theEditor of the paper that he was wrong in what he had written."In other words, Mr. Gay did not choose to ask his fellow-bio-grapher to relieve the hospital and his colleagues from theodium cast upon them in his own memoir. Was it possible forthe affairs of the institution to proceed harmoniously whileone of its officers could thus act towards his colleagues and thegoverning authority of the institution ?Mr. Gay confidently states that until the recent unfortunateoccurrence his conduct as one of the surgeons of the hospitalhad invariably met with the unqualilied approbation of allparties connected with the institution. Such a declarationimperatively demands a disclosure of the fact that great hasbeen the forbearance of many successive Committees of Manage-ment towards Mr. Gay-repeated his acts of resistance to therules and regulations of the hospital. Within a few years afterMr. Gay had been elected to the office of Surgeon he plottedfor the ejection from the Committee of the Founder of the In-stitution. At one period, Mr. Gay refused to see the infantpatients who were received at the hospital. The Committeeyielded to him, and appointed another medical officer to attendto the sick children. At another time, Mr. Gay failed to seehis out-patients, and transferred his duties to two youngfriends, strangers to the hospital. These gentlemen, besidesseeing the patients at the hospital, received them at their ownhouses, and then sent them to the hospital for medicines pre-scribed on Mr. Gay’s official papers. Mr. Gay persisted in thiscourse of proceeding, and defied the Committee, until a newregulation was made to put an end to so great an irregularity.This act of resistance was also overlooked by the Committee.On a subsequent occasion (in 1852), Mr. Gay objected to seehis out-patients more than once a-week, when, with a view toprotect the suffering poor from making fruitless visits to thehospital, another medical officer was appointed to attend uponthem. Again was Mr. Gay excused.

Complaints had been repeatedly made by Mr. Gay that thehospital did not contain a proper theatre for the performanceof operations; but no sooner was the present commodioustheatre erected, than he declared that he would not operatetherein, and he persisted in performing his operations in thewards, until a special order was issued by the Committee toprevent the continuance of such an objectionable practice.Many other occurrences of a kind similar to the foregoing

might be mentioned, but it would obviously be a labour ofsupererogation to proceed further on this exceedingly painfulsubject.

! Your Committee, however, finding that their motives are