be examined. This affidavit was sworn at a police-office in Middlesex. I don't know that Mr. Lambert did more than give a certificate of the moral character of Clapham.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT.-That is my case. After a short pause, Mr. Wakley proceeded to reply.-He said that at the commencement of the case yesterday, the learned gentleman opposed to him expressed some apprehension lest, by the breaking down of the defendant's witnesses, the opportunity would not be afforded of bringing forward the host of evidence to the great and extraordinary skill of Mr. Bransby Cooper. The learned gentleman was then told that he might make his mind easy on that head. The result justified the declaration of the defendant. His witnesses had not broken down, and no charges against Mr. Cooper had been answered. A verdict must therefore be given for the defendant. After referring to the origin and progress of the Lancet, the defendant declared that the proceedings of that day were the most peculiar that ever took place. One would have supposed, from the parade with which this case was heralded, that the report in the Lancet was a fabrication-that no such operation was ever performed --and that it had no foundation from beginning to end, except in the malevolent mind of the defendant. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff admitted that there were 200 spectators, and yet, with all the influence of Mr. Bransby Cooper, he was only able to produce one single spectator to rebut the charge made against him. The plaintiff sought every where but in the proper place for witnesses; he had surgeons from St. Thomas's Hospital, he had Sir Astley Cooper from Conduit Street, and it was to be wondered that the Emperor of Morocco was not also thrust into the box. With reference to the influence which Sir Astley Cooper had in the appointment of surgeons to Guy's Hospital, he put it to the Jury whether Sir Astley was entitled to recommend any man to the care of patients as he had done his own nephew in this instance. This hospital belonged not to the directors, but to the poor, for whose use public funds had been granted. Mr. Callaway was elected an assistant surgeon, and Sir Astley Cooper consulting surgeon, on the same day that Mr. Bransby Cooper was appointed to the situation of surgeon. It was a saying of John Hunter, that bad surgeons made work for good ones; and that good surgeons would starve but for bad ones. Perhaps it was in reference to the operations of Mr. Bransby Cooper that

these two supernumeraries have been appointed.

The defendant here became so exhausted, that he retired from the court for a few minutes. On his return, he observed again upon the absence of witnesses in reply to the charge, who had been present at the operation. Leaving out of consideration the technicalities of pleading, the defendant thought himself fully entitled to a verdict if the report were substantially correct. Could it be pretended that Mr. Cooper was a skilful surgeon when he was unable to explain the causes of the difficulty that presented itself? Could he (Mr. Cooper) be said to have had presence of mind when, whilst he was plunging his instruments into the unfortunate patient, he openly declared that he could not find the reason for not being able to extract the stone? The poor man repeatedly called on them and implored them to loose him-he knew the torture of his complaint, he felt the torture which he was then undergoing, still he cried to be let go. "No," said Mr. Bransby Cooper, my reputation is concerned, I must take out the stone, even though you should die." He did die. The defendant most solemnly protested to God that he had no ill will towards Mr. Cooper; he believed him to be a most amiable private character; but as a surgeon-as a surgeon of a public hospital-as a public functionaryhe denounced him to be ignorant and incompetent. Let the jury weigh well the evidence, and if they felt that they, if afflicted in a similar way, would not suffer Mr. Bransby Cooper to operate on them, then they must find their verdict for the defendant.

แ

At the conclusion of the defendant's ad

dress, which was delivered with great animation and effect, he was applauded by a number of persons in the remote part of the court.

This ebullition of feeling was checked by a very decided intimation from Lord Tenterden that he would commit the parties to custody, if they persevered in it.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up the evidence, observed, that if the jury believed that this report was a bonâ fide account of the transaction, they must, without reference to its effect upon the character of Mr. Cooper, find a verdict for the defendant. If, however, it was erroneous or falsely coloured, intending to injure the professional reputation of the plaintiff they must find a verdict for him. His Lordship in the course of his address,

pointed the attention of the Jury to what seemed to be the general impression of the witnesses for the plaintiff that the report was drawn up in an unprofessional manner-that it was illiberal and uncandid in its remarks-and that, in point of fact, no report of a case tending to prejudice the operator ought to have been sent before the public without the party making it having consulted the operator himself, as he alone was the best judge of the difficulties of the particular case in which he was engaged. The question, His Lordship observed, was one of great importance, not only to the individual, but to the public, and called for the serious consideration of the jury. The real question they had to decide was, whether or not the operation was performed in a skilful manner. One of the grounds on which it was stated not to be so was the length of time taken in it; but on this subject they had heard from some of the most skilful surgeons of the day that shortness or length of time was by no means a test of the skill of the operator, but depended upon the difficulties which might or might not present themselves in each particular case. If on the whole they believed that Mr. Cooper had shewn professional skill in the performance of that operation, and was generally fitted for the duties of the station he now filled, they would find a verdict for him, with damages sufficient-not, as had been said by the counsel of the plaintiff, to mark their indignation at the charge, but, to meet the justice of the case, after giving it

the most mature and temperate consideration.

At a quarter to nine the Jury retired to consider their verdict, and at near eleven o'clock they returned to court, finding a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 100%.

There was a slight burst of applause in the court on hearing the announcement, which, however, was speedily suppressed by the officers.

This trial seemed to excite very general interest, and the court was crowded in every part up to the very last moment.

COMMENTARY.

The Profession is now, at length, tasting the bitter drainings of that poisoned chalice, from which it so long quaffed the nectar of defamation! When the "REPORT," which forms the text of this long article, was first published, we characterized it in terms at least as strong, as those which Sir James VOL. X. No. 19.

Scarlett has since employed.* Every syl lable which we then put on prophetic record, has since been realized.

We may now legally say that the REPORT was a most foul, false, and infamous calumny. Mr. Wakley published that Report. If he did not see the malus animus with which it was indited, what are we to think of his head? If he did perceive the malus animus, and yet published the Report, what does he say to his heart? One of his own witnesses -the Potatoe-merchant-(and we verily believe him to be the most honest of all his witnesses, humble as was his origin)-characterised the Report of Sub-editor Lambert, (who modestly swears that he (Lambert) is a better surgeon than Mr. Cooper) as a very unprofessional Report"!!!-We know not on which horn of this dilemma Mr. Wakley may choose to run-but between them he cannot steer, in the mind of any one, capable of reflection. This was the FIRST ACT of the DRAMA presented for his acceptance by the now celebrated manager of the moral department of the Lancet. If an honourable man found that he had published an un

* In the Commentary which we here append to this memorable trial, we beg it to be distinctly understood that, when we speak of the LANCET, or give it any character, we mean, unequivocally and conscientiously, a periodical WEEKLY JOURNAL, composed by various writers, to us totally unknown. By the term LANCET, therefore, we abjure and disclaim all or any personal allusion to editor, sub-editor, or individual writer-and for this plain reason, that we cannot tell who are the writers of articles that are anonymous. When we allude to the editor or sub

editor, we openly and candidly state them by name, and make ourselves responsible for our observations. This, we believe, is the honourable and honest path to pursue. We are sorry to say, that it is a path which Mr. Wakley himself has not taken, in his innumerable attacks upon us. He has, invariably, identified the editor of this Journal with every writer in it--a conduct as unjust in a literary, as it is unmanly, in a personal point of view.-Ed.

† See Lambert's certificate of moral character, by which Clapham obtained his License from Apothecaries' Hall.

just stigma on the professional character of his neighbour, (and surely the conjoint letter of 150 students might have been sufficient evidence of this) what would naturally suggest itself as the remedy, and the measure to be pursued? Undoubtedly a direct and prompt acknowledgement of the error, and an expression of sorrow for what had occurred. Did Mr. Wakley offer this reparation for slandered fame and wounded feelings? No! he persevered in asserting that the false libel was a true statement ! Thus ended the first act of the drama.

but that the libeller should not relax his pursuit until he had personally poured forth the whole vial of his wrath in a crowded Court of Justice, expending every epithet of obloquy on the professional character of his victim, to that extent that the defamer sunk exhausted himself, and nearly expired in his terrible work of destruction-is almost incredible!! It is a phenomenon that was reserved for the nineteenth century !

The second act was occupied in placing the plea of justification on the record. It was a natural consequence of the first act-and it greatly exasperated and empoisoned the sting of the libel. If a man, through heat of passion, or from inadvertency, publishes a calumny, and finds that he must take the legal consequences, he wisely determines not to aggravate the evil by any attempt to maintain the truth of that which is false. He accordingly pleads the GENERAL ISSUE, and thus takes the chance of mitigating the penalty incurred by himself, while he lessens the amount of evil sustained by the injured party. Did Mr. Wakley follow this rule? No. He deliberately pleaded a justification—and repeatedly published his determination to the world, thus tending, all in his power, to confirm the idea that Mr. Bransby Cooper was an ignorant surgeon, and unfit to perform an operation! When we consider the nature of the accusationthe terrible consequences of it to a medical man-and the laceration of feeling which it must produce in so many minds-we are utterly at a loss to know on what principle Mr. Wakley proceeded. If it was on a principle of JUSTICE, a jury of his country has proved himself to be unjust. If it was on any principle of humanity, philanthropy, science, or medical ethics, we leave to his professional brethren, in their moments of cool reflection, to pronounce on the wisdom, policy, or generosity of the measure.

This brings us to the THIRD ACT of the melancholy tragedy. For one medical man to publish a calumnious aspersion on the professional character of another, is bad— to put a justification on the record, is worse

We

The libeller, in this case, came into court in the character of a barrister—and he will, no doubt, be much gratified, when we say that he appeared at least as well qualified for that important function as for the less obtrusive station of SURGEON. He was attended by his FIDUS ACHATES, LAMBERT, who avowed himself, for the first time, as the writer of the libellous report, and the stipendiary sub-conductor of the LANCET! shall defer our comments on the latter, for a few minutes, in order to make a reflection or two on Counsellor Wakley. The propriety and the taste of a medical man coming into court to defend the truth of a libel on one of his own profession, we leave to the profession itself. The difficulties of medical practice were not sufficiently numerousthe prejudices of the non-professional public against the surgical practitioner were not sufficiently strong-the errors to which the most scientific surgeons are liable, were not patent enough to the world-till Mr. Wakley, that eminent and successful practical surgeon, of Bedford Square, thought fit to make an exposé of the ignorance of his brethren in the Court of King's Bench! But, passing over Mr. Wakley's forensic qualifications, let us ask him, what the profession will think of the miserable attempt to horrify the minds of the court and the jury, by exhibiting a figure bound and pinioned as in the operation for lithotomy! A more disingenuous manœuvre never entered the mind of man. It was a preparatory step to the accusation, which he af terwards brought against Mr. Cooper of violating the rights of a British subjecta "free agent," by persevering with the operation after the patient had cried out to be unbound! What Englishman will not blush for his country and his profession, when he reflects on this plea and this crimination brought forvard in a court of justice by a man taking upon

himself the censorship of the medical press!

What man who has witnessed half a dozen operations, does not know that this exclamation for liberty is a very common occurrence, in most of the capital operations? The judge-who probably never saw a surgical instrument wet with blood, scouted the accusation, and absolved Mr. Cooper from any, the slight est blame on this occasion. Nothing can be more expressive of the character of the Lancet and its writers, than this fiery and unfair appeal to the passions of the popu lace-this sophistry of argument-this destitution of candour as well as knowledge.

We shall not dwell farther on Mr. Wakley's opening oration, which, like his concluding one, was but too familiar to the medical ear-in fact, a reiteration of the obsolete and disgusting harangues in the Lancet, about hospital bats-corruptionists--public functionaries--freedom of the press, and all that kind of sickening slang. His speeches on both days, were prominently distinguished by fluency of language-want of judgment -disregard of truth-and perfect freedom from all feeling of professional delicacy.

In his cross-examination of the witnesses, especially the plaintiff's witnesses -he evinced the most complete want of tact and skill. We appeal to every one present, whether the answers drawn forth did not invariably tell against himself. He wormed out not a single discrepancy of opinion among the mass of surgeons and physicians called into the witness-box -thus confirming, in a most extraordinary manner, the truth of their allegations. But he did more than this :-he displayed any thing but a practical acquaintance with the operation which he came into court to oppugn. His knowledge of anatomy was so exquisite, that he denied the possibility of a calculus being lodged above and behind the pubes -though the only witness, of any pretension to experience, who was called by himself, admitted such a circumstanceand even that it existed in the case in question.

Of his concluding harangue, we shall here only notice one most remarkable example of his sophistry, disingenuousness, and want both of candour and judgment. He asked the jury whether, if they had

the misfortune to be afflicted with caleulus, they would, after what came out on the trial, select Mr. Bransby Cooper to perform the operation of lithotomy? If they would not, they must find a verdict for him!! Was there ever such a treacherous question proposed--or such a lame and impotent conclusion drawn from the implied answer! If a stranger to Mr. Cooper did not select him to operate, merely because the said Mr. Cooper was accused of operating unskilfully, the ver dict must be given in favour of the libeller!! Is there a particle of sense, justice,

or reason, in such a conclusion? No! The following is the fair question, and rational deduction from the answer. Would a surgeon who was in the habit of calling in Mr. Cooper to operate on his patients, cease to call him in, after seeing or hear. ing the whole case in question, from an apprehension of his unskilfulness? It the unfortunate case under litigation did not prejudice those who were the only proper judges of skill and dexterity, against the operator, then Mr. Wakley's ungenerons, disingenuous, and unprofessional question and conclusion fall to the ground. On this point he rested his cause so completely, that he triumpantly asserted the jury must find a verdict in his favour;-and yet they found a verdict against him,"

As to Mr. Wakley's batch of witnesses, whom he introduced as MAGNATES in the profession, and of the very first order of talent, skill, and experience, they made, with one or two exceptions, as contempti ble a figure as ever was exhibited in a

*The world knows how Mr. Wakley boasted, a short time ago, that he would prove officially, on this trial, the exact circulation of the Lancet. Not a single attempt did he make when Lambert was in the witness box, and, consequently, when he had a fair opportunity of "redeeming his pledge." No, no! He was wise enough not to touch on that point. True, his vanity permitted Sir James Scarlett to represent him as rolling about in his carriage, and earning five or six thousand a year!!! We venture to say, however, that Mr. Wakley keeps neither carriage, cab, nor shay-neither horse, mule, cor ASS-unless a literary HACK, near Clapham Common, can be included in this last de nomination.

court of justice. Among the few who made any pretension to education, skill, or practical experience, there was an obvious prejudice or party-spirit-and, at all events, the most gross want of professional liberality-we had almost said of justice. The most honest, by far, of all Mr. Wakley's witnesses (Mr. Lee) declared, on oath, that no man but the operator himself could appreciate the difficulties of the operation. How, then, could Mr. Partridge, who sat behind the operator, reconcile his statement with any principle of professional feeling, liberality, etiquette or honour? The harsh, uncharitable, UNCHRISTIAN judgment,* which Mr. Partridge passed on a brother practitioner, during this memorable trial, will one day be visited on himself! Both judge and jury negatived Mr. Partridge's FIAT-and we are convinced that the recollection of this trial, and of his own ungenerous, unprofessional evidence on it, will prove a source of bitter remorse to the latest day of his existence. It has been well observed by our contemporary, the medical Gazette, that-" this man swore that he had never seen Wakley before; but kindred natures soon understand each other, and we observed that he sat by his new friend during the rest of the day, encouraging him by his presence, and assisting him with his advice." Verily, PARTRIDGE, thou hast paired with the VULTURE this time!

anonymous reporter of Mr. Cooper's case -and a jury of our country has proved the report to be false, scandalous, and malicious. We had no idea that any human being could have the bardihood to come forward, in a court of justice, and avow himself as the author of the said report. Yet Mr. Lambert has done so-and we envy him not the consequences. Mr. Wakley has shewn a deep insight into hu man nature, by an early selection of Mr. James Lambert for sub-editor of his journal. The man who could thrust his unhallowed finger into the DEAD, for the purpose, we will not say, of blasting the reputation of the LIVING, must be, of all others on the face of this beauteous globe the fittest agent for wielding the LANCET!

In coming into a court of justice-one as author, and the other as advocate, of the most atrocious calumny that ever issued from the press-Messrs. Lambert and Wakley appear to have made a bold experiment on the common sense of the profession, by trying how far impudent and unqualified assertion might stagger and beat down the modest and conscientious averments of TRUTH. On such an occasion, they, no doubt, judged it politic to touch the extreme goal--the ULTIMA THULE, of possibility, without entirely overleaping the utmost boundary of credence. They did approach that dangerous barrier!-but with an impetus that hurled them headlong, far, far beyond the mark! The Lancet has unconsciously passed the RUBICON of public feeling-it has drawn the sword against the dignity of the profession, and it may now fling away the scabbard! For it there is no retreat. Like Hannibal, it may, for a time, defend