454

THE LANCET.

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1848.

A ROYAL AUTHOR ON PHYSIOLOGY.-QUACKERY IN BOLTON.

THE Spanish marriages, with their revolutionary resultsaffecting the entire continent of Europe, promise to be thepoints upon which must hinge the history of the presentcentury. The documents recently published from the secretportfolio of Louis PHILIPPE, which had fallen into the handsof the republicans, bring out the ex-King in a new character-namely, as an authority in royal physiology. Louis PHILIPPE’Sdefence of his double-dealing in the double marriages of theQueen of Spain and the Spanish Infanta mainly rest on cer-tain questions of puberty, amenorrhcea, sterility, and virility,which are handled in the most nonchalant manner by thelate master of the Tuileries. These physiological and patho-logical memoranda are contained in a letter of Louis PHILIPPEto his own daughter, the Queen of the Belgians-" my deargood LouiSB," as he calls her-and they were intended to beset forth by the wife of King LEOPOLD to her Majesty QueenVICTORIA-" our good little Queen," as the writer calls her;and they certainly do exhibit in a somewhat strange lightthe subiects ofresral correspondence.It appears that his Majesty the ex-King, while Europe

thought him busy with far higher affairs, was watching, withthe utmost interest and anxiety, for the first appearance of

the catamenia in the person of Queen ISABELLA SEGUNDA.In September, 1845, when Queen VICTORIA visited the ex-royal family of France, at the chateau d’Eu, it would seemthat an important part of the by-policy of M. GuizoT andLord ABERDEEN related to the tardy puberty of the Queen ofSpain: she was not then " nubile." In consequence of the

state of her health, ISABELLA, " although fifteen years of age,all but a month, was not marriageable," and the appearance ofthe royal menses was a grave diplomatic question for theforeign ministers of France and England.But as Louis PHILIPPE writes to his daughter, 11 dearest

LouisE/’ the amenorrhceal symptoms of her most CatholicMajesty shortly disappeared. The royal physiologist says,-" The Queen became marriageable during the winter; and she" being, according to the assurances that were given us, under"the most favourable circumstances for the marriage state,"nothing was left but to know whether the husband she" might choose exhibited the best condition of virility." The

royal panderer forthwith set about selecting a husband under"the best condition;" and he goes on to say," It seemed to" me certain, from all the information, even of the nzost minute"nature, taken upon this subject, with regard to Don FRAN-cisco D’Assis, that he was in the required condition, andthat, consequently, there was every probability united for

"hoping that their marriage would not be without issue."What the minute inquiries were, or how conducted, does not

appear. Was this the secret of ORFILA’S journeys to Madrid,and the cause of his disgrace by the Provisional Government?All this is written, it is to be remembered, from a father to

a daughter, and was intended for the eyes or ears of our owngracious Queen. Louis PHILIPPE says that he "even began aletter" to her, that he stopped short, and says to "dearestLocisE," who was to be his go-between,-" I prefer writing toyou, to W710M I can say everyt7iing." The success of the royal I

manoeuvrer was not, as might have been expected, very grea1with the Queen of these realms, and his plans succeeded butill in imposing upon Europe. With his own son married byclandestine trickery to the next heir to the throne, his profes-sion of anxiety to obtain for the Spanish Queen a husband who" exhibited the best conditions of virility," were not very likelyto be true, or to be credited. They were belied at the timeby the reported impotence of Don FRANCISCO, and this reporthas been confirmed by the absence of all offspring or preg-nancy ; by the Serrano scandals; and by the frequent separa.tion of the Queen from her husband’s bed. Such domestictreason against his innocent nieces merited a punishment; butwrong has seldom met with so prompt a reprisal, as in thecase of the now disgraced and discrowned head of the houseof Orleans. This prurient correspondence, as the subject ofit ought only to have been discussed in medical writings, orby the medical representatives of the different courts, so

can only be treated as it deserves in a medical journal, or befully understood by medical men. Such royal and diplomaticspeculations upon sterility, menstruation, impotence, and viri-lity, are stains upon the decency of the present age. Their

recital is like a page from the profligate history of the courtof CHARLES II., or of the Bourbon kings before the firstFrench revolution.

OUR readers will remember the case of Ems FLITCROPT,brick-maker, quack herbalist, and Coffinite, whose proceed-ings on a former occasion led to an inquest, and to his ownimprisonment. Another inquest was recently held at Bolton,the dupe on this occasion being a poor pregnant woman,suffering from the cramp of pregnancy. The poor creature’s

legs were rubbed and scrubbed with a mixture of cayennepepper, brandy, and other stimulants, so as to produce inflam-mation and sloughing from the knee to the ankle, and deathas the sequel. The jury returned as a verdict,-" That death" had been accelerated by mortification, which was caused by"the application of improper stimulants." The able coroner,Mr. TAYLOR, warned FLITCROFT and his wife, that the nexttime a similar case came before him, he should have no hesi-tation in advising the jury to return a verdict of man-

slaughter ; and he observed, that " he (the coroner) had seen"seven or eight cases in which death was clearly traced to" them." We can only wish the verdict this time had beenmanslaughter; for never was intention more criminal, orpunishment more richly deserved.We commend this case and the consideration of £

all quackery crimes to those who stubbornly or sel-

fishly throw obstacles in the way of a just and satis-

factory settlement of the question of medical reform.

For years, quackery has been rampant, disgracing the

profession, and slaying its thousands and tens of thousandsamong the poor and ignorant, and yet the heads of the pro-fession cannot deal liberally by the medical masses, and so

stay this plague. Surely concessions ought to be made be-tween medical men of every grade, if not for their own sakes,for the good of the dupes of quackery, whose lives are sacri-ficed by hecatombs to unworthy medical bickerings. We donot hesitate to say, that but for professional jealousies, thepresent state of the law respecting illegal practice wouldnot and could not continue, while without their suppressionit may go on as it has done through other long years of agita-tion and mischief. The more, too, the question is agitated

455MIL TATHAM AND THE GUARDIANS OF HUDDERSFIELD.

the more will the public blame the medical profession forpermitting the present state of things to continue.Mark the history of this FLITCROFT, the miserable agent of

a quack, himself guilty of similar practices. A coroner’sinquest proves him accessory to the death of a fellow creature.The coroner, a medical man, procures his prosecution underthe present penalty laws as an illegal practitioner, and he isimprisoned. On his exit from prison, he is welcomed and

escorted home, in the most public and triumphant manner, byhis dupes or coadjutors. He renews his former career, isagain proved to have been an accessary to the death of apregnant woman and her unborn child, and the coroner

openly declares he has tracked him through seven or eightequally glaring cases. Yet what is the result ? We are told

that the wretch and his wife positively laughed at the judicialproceedings, and FLITCROFT himself doubtlessly returned tohis Coffinism, and his pursuit of new victims among the poor.Is this a condition of the public health with which medicalmen, its sworn guardians, ought to rest contented Is it notrather one which should unite all parties and all sects in theprofession-if such, unfortunately, exist-to obtain a legis-lation which shall deliver the poor from such trafficking withlife as now exists among the lower forms of quackery ? Will

not this sufferance of an inhumanity which might be pre-vented come some day, as a heavy charge, to the door of themedical profession ?

THE case of Mr. TATHAM, medical officer to the Hudders-field Union, which was made the subject of a trial at therecent assizes at York, is, next to that of Mr. WESTLAKE, ofAndover, one of the most disgraceful commentaries on ourpoor-law system which has yet been made public.Mr. TATHAM was appointed medical officer to the northern

division of the township of Huddersfield, including the poor-house, in the commencement of 1843, at a salary of X40 perannum. At the end of his first year’s service, Mr. TATHAMfound that, besides 1633 journeys and visits, he had suppliedmedicines to the poor, which, at the lowest possible rate ofcharges, amounted to X37 18s. 7id., or within one shilling andsixpence of his year’s salary. He very naturally applied tothe Board of Guardians for an increase of salary. It was

after a while proposed at the Board to make an increasefrom ;1;40 to X70 per annum: this proposition was lost byone vote alone, and finally an addition of £ 10 a year only wasvoted. Mr. TATHAM entered into correspondence with thePoor-law Commissioners on the subject of a larger increase,and applied to the Board to re-consider their decision. Even

the Poor-law Commissioners pronounced a strong opinionupon the case, remarking, in their reply to Mr. FLOYD, clerkto the guardians,—" The Commissioners have given the cir-94 cumstances of the case their attention, and they think it" desirable that the guardians should re-consider Mr.

" TATHAM’s application for an increase of salary." Mr.

TATHAM’a application was for £ 100 a year, and the guardiansdecided on .E80. It was allowed on all hands that the ordi-

nary duties of Mr. TATHAM had increased enormously sincehis first appointment, and that the duties of the office hadbeen performed with such skill and humanity as to defycensure.

In April, 1847, a house was fitted up as a fever hospital inHuddersfield, within Mr. TATHAII1’S district, owing to the pre-

valence of typhus of a very fatal type; to this hospital patientswere sent from other districts of the Union, to the relief, in

some measure, of the other medical officers, but with the

of throwing great and additional danger, fatigue, andexpense on Mr. TATHAM. For the quarter ending in July,1847, he found himself out of pocket, and he subsequentlyapplied for some remuneration for the attendance, extra-contract, upon the fever hospital, the attendance upon whichformed no part of his original engagement. On September24th, 1847, Mr. TATHAM sent in his bill to the Board of

Guardians, charging .6100 for the extra attendance upon thefever hospital. The total number of cases admitted into the

.1

hospital up to that time was 160, for the twenty-one weeksduring which it had been opened, there was a weekly averageof twenty-seven cases and a half. The average length of timeduring which each patient was under Mr. TATHAM’s care, and

. supplied with medicines, was twenty days and one-third. In

l addition to this, he had attended fifty-seven cases of typhus; fever in his own district, distinct from the fever hospital.. ) It will scarcely be believed that the guardians refused Mr.

TATHAM any remuneration for the labour, the excessive risk oflife, and the expense of the extra-contract fever hospital,though the principle of recompence was sanctioned by thePoor-law Commissioners. Mr. LUMLEY, assistant-secretaryto the Commission, stated officially, that if the contract

bound Mr. TATHAM to attend the fever hospital, it was" inequitable" to hold him to the terms of the contract;but the Commissioners questioned whether the contract wasbinding to this extent, and suggested that, in such case, hisclaim was enforceable by law; at the same time, they (theCommissioners) expressed their willingness to consent to pay-ment, if the Board of Guardians were willing to award it.The guardians adhering to their meanness and injustice, the

case came for trial, at York, on the 22nd ult., before Mr. Baron, ALDERSON. The following are the paltry quibbles raised byz the guardians in their defence, the only defence they couldl offer.

"1st, that the directions given to Mr. Tatham to attendthe patients in the fever hospital were not given by theguardians in their corporate capacity, by a resolution of theboard; 2nd, that Mr. Tatham was bound to do what he did,under the agreement imposing upon him the necessity ofattending to the permanent and casual poor; 3rd, that even ifthere had been an order of the guardians not embodied inthe agreement, and not made under the corporation seal, itwould not bind them; and 4th, that nothing would bind themexcept an order in their books, and that there was no orderin the books."

The scene described below then took place between Baron

ALDERSON, Mr. MARTIN, (Mr. TATHAM’S counsel,) and Mr.

BAiNES, counsel for the guardians, who seemed heartilyashamed of his brief :-

His LoRDSHir said he should recommend the plaintiff to takethe £ 42 which the guardians had offered, and to withdiaw ajuror ; but he would advise the inhabitants of Huddersfield to takesome steps to remasnerate Mr. Tatham ’/Cell. His opinion was,that the attendance at the fever hospital was not within thebargain,-that these were not casual poor ; but he thoughtnothing would bind the guardians but a resolution.Mr. MARTIN.-I do not mean to say it is not a case of diffi-

culty.The JUDGE.—But it is a case for liberality.Mr. BAINES.-My clients feel hampered by this : they say it

is not their own money to give.The JUDGE.—They may very safely do that. I WILL gNDERTAgE

TO GUARANTEE THEM FOR A VERY SMALL PER CENT AGE. There isnot quite that feeling in the people of England to put them to anyhazard.

456 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CHAIR OF SURGERY.—THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.

Mr. MARTIN.-The poor-law commissioners themselves ad-vised that the matter should be put into Mr. Austin’s handsto settle.The JuDGE.—Mr. Daines, instead of undertaking to give the

sum, will you withdraw a juror, and let the commissionerssay what sum they are willing you should give ?Mr. MARTIN.—I am content with that.Mr. BAINES.—It is the most difficult thing in the world to get

an answer from those poor-law commissioners. (This was in-correct.) I am prepared to give the £42, and to withdraw ajuror.His LORDSHIP again advised the acceptance of the £42, as

the best course for avoiding litigation ; and observed that ifke were an inhabitant of Hudders,fielcl he would subscribe hand-somely."We shall return to the subject again, but for the present

we cannot do better than quote the words of a pamphlet whichhas been circulated in Huddersfield.

"The meaning of his is, that Mr. Tatham lost the trial,and hashis own expenses to pay, not because his claim was consideredunjust,-for Mr. Baines, the counsel for the defence, admittedthat the work had been done;—but it was lost on a mere quibble.It appears that in the excitement consequent on the epidemic,when the temporary fever hospital was taken by the Hudders-field guardians, the board of guardians neglected to enter the

adoption of the fever hospital in their minute book; and they (theguardians) being a corporate body, were not bound in law topay Mr. Tatham for his services in that hospital. Mr. Tathamis therefore punished for the NEGLECT of the guardians! andnearly the whole salary which he has received during the fiveyears of his engagement as medical officer will be swallowedup in this dirty business. The judge, the jury, and the entirecourt, were indignant at the wrong perpetrated against Mr.Tatham; and though the judge was obliged to pronounceagainst him on the legal point, he characterized the conductof the defendants " as disgraceful."

THE vacancy in the Chair of Surgery at University Colleg(is not yet advertised. The Council never had a more im

portant duty to discharge than at this period. Continued in-

justice cannot be practised with impunity against the gentle-men who have been educated a+ University College andHospital. Hitherto they have been scandalously treated bypersons who ought to have been their protectors. We abhorthe influence of nepotism and favouritism in making appoint-ments to our public medical institutions. We spurn the idea,therefore, of asking for a monopoly of the offices of Univer-sity College and Hospital for the gentlemen who have beeneducated in those establishments. All that we demand for

them is an equal chance with others-all we insist upon is,that their claims shall be fairly considered, and that theyshall not be excluded from the highest, most honourable, andvaluable offices in a college and a hospital, the reputationof which they have enhanced by severe and laborious study.We strongly deprecate mixing up the name of Mr. Sumwith the discordant elements of the present cabal. He is

not blameable in the matter. He cannot be justly censuredfor coming here. On the contrary, the boldness of the enter-

prise was characteristic of a noble ambition, and lie oughtnot to suffer or be reproached for the acts of others.On the Council of University College now devolves the

duty of acting openly and honestly; and if they fail to makea just selection from amongst the candidates who may beinvited to come forward, then will the medical departmentof University College and Hospital receive its final, its fatalblow.At the moment of going to press, we have received a letter

from Mr. MORTON, one object of which is to state that he didnot make use of the words, " that the Council had made nooffer to him." We shall publish his letter next week.

Correspondence.THE LICENTIATES EXTRA URBEM AND THE PRO-JECTED CHARTER TO THE COLLEGE OF PHY-SICIANS.

FRANCIS HAWKINS.

To tlte Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—You will confer an additional favour on the wholebody of the permissi extra urbem by publishing the enclosedletters. I trust the dark cloud is not destined to burst in-

juriously and unjustly on our heads. I do hope there is no’ Ulyssean duplicity; but the licentiates must judge for them-

selves, and under any circumstances keep a sharp look-out.yap µoí , óµ&ohgr; ,

"0 µ&ohgr;v KEt’CE6 wi , a&lgr;&lgr;o ∈ .I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

M.D. AND LICENTIATE EXTRA URBEM OF THEROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.-

April 10th, 1848.SIR,—I beg leave to ask you, as the registrar of the College

of Physicians, if there is any truth in the report that thegoverning body of the college continue their desire for theintroduction of a clause in the projected charter, deprivingthe permissi extra, urbem of the rights and privileges nowenjoyed by them, pursuant to Act of the 14th and 15th ofHenry VIII. ?

I can, indeed, hardly believe that the college could seriouslythink of recommending so discreditable and unjust a proceed-ing. There is not, I believe, on record, an instance of retro-spective legislation: all new laws have always been prospectivein their operations ; and existing rights have ever been heldsacred during the lifetime of the parties legally enjoying them.

I am therefore most anxious, before I join any defensiveorganization of the licentiates extra urbem, or sign any peti-tion to the House of Commons, or memorial to the HomeSecretary, stating our present position, and what would becomeour position should snch a monstrous clause be inserted in theproposed charter, and become the law of the laud, to hearofficially from you if the report is true or false.To Dr. Francis Hawkins. I am, &c., .

18, Bolton-street, London, April nth, 1848.

SIR,—I beg to assure you that the notion, whencesoeverderived, that the College of Physicians ever intended to pro-pose any Act, or clause of an Act, which should have a re-trospective operation, is wholly unfounded, and to me it ap-pears even absurd.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,To Dr..

_____

FRANCIS HAWKINS.

April 12th, 1848.

SiR,—Will you allow me to publish your note of the llthinstant in THE LANCET ? I am quite sure it would allay theuneasiness of a large body of licentiates extra urbem. Praycan yon explain how the fourth clause (the cause of all thisanxiety) came to be inserted in the proposed charter, as pub-lished in the medical journals ?-I am, &c., ____

To Dr. Francis Hawkins. _____

’

18, Bolton-street, London, April 13th, 1848.SIR,—I can have no objection to the publication of my

note; for I have stated the same fact more fully in evidencebefore the Committee of the House of Commons, which will,I suppose, very soon be published.

I have also recently explained, in a letter published in thelast number of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal,that the restrictions which have been complained of resultedfrom numerous remonstrances which poured in upon the Col-lege of Physicians, respecting the manner in which someextra-licentiates had obtained their letters testimonial, andthe use which they had made of them.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,To Dr..

_____ FRANCIS IIAWKINS.

April 14th, 1848.

SIR,—I believe I am now clearly to understand, withoutany evasion, that the College of Physicians does not intendto propose any Act, or clause of an Act, or willingly acceptany Charter or Act, calculated to annul the statute rights ofthe extra-urbem licentiates.

All members are amenable to the general laws of the col-lege ; then let those laws be put into operation against alltransgressors, to whatever class they may belong, whetherfellows or licentiates, (metropolitan or provincial.)To Dr. Francis Hawkins. I am, Sir, &c.,