305

THE LANCET.

London, Saturday, December 6, 1828.

THE GLASGOW FORGERS.

OUR exposure of the fraud committed a

Glasgow, at the very moment when it wa:

supposed to have been not only successfulbut undetected, has, of course, covered its

perpetrators with disgrace and confusionand our adversaries must perceive, by thistime, the vantage ground which they havElost by their most extraordinary admissions,It is, as far as we know, unparalleled inthe annals of literary controversy, that

one party should exult in the success oj

an acknowledged fraud, and claim credit

for a fabrication " well conceived and cle-

verly executed." The only text-book, as

we have already hinted, wherein a man’sdexterity in fraud is taken as a guage of hisintellectual superiority, is that in which Mr.Peachum pronounces, that there are some

dull rogues who would never be hanged withcredit to themselves, if they were to live tothe longest term assignable to men of soar-

ing propensities. 11 A poor, petty larcenyrogue," exclaims that respectable character," without the least genius - that fellow,

though he were to live these six months,would never come to the gallows with anycredit." It is in Peachum’s school that our

adversaries have learned to take credit to

themselves for the cleverness with which

they have conceived and executed a fraud;but it is a little singular, that, while theypique themselves upon this species of in-tellectual proficiency, they should, in view-ing the matter under another aspect, affecta tone somewhat more in unison with re-

cognised principles of morality. If, say

they, we had any reason to doubt the ge-nuineness of the communication, why insertit? We have already stated, that althoughthere were parts of the case, that afterwardsturned out to be fabricated, which we view-

ed with suspicion, yet there were other

parts of the letter containing it which, uponthe whole, removed that suspicion, and weadmit, therefore, that we were, to that ex-

tent, deceived. But although, in publish-ing the case in question, we believed thatwe were publishing a case not less genuine,and certainly not more strongly illustrativeof the ignorance of the Glasgow surgeons,than those of which the accuracy had been

fully substantiated, we were not insensibleto the advantage which we should derivefrom the fraud and folly of our adversaries,in the event of our first suspicions beingconfirmed. Would it have been possible,by any course different from that which weadopted, to place the fabricators in so dis-

graceful a position as that in which theyare now placed, by an acknowledgment oftheir own infamy, made simultaneouslywith our exposure of the fraud ? They arecaught in their own trap, and a more humi-

liating, and, at the same time, ludicrous

spectacle was, perhaps, never yet made by

men who, in the commencement of their

career, attempted, like the pious, but pilfer-

ing valet in Gil Blas, to palm themselves

upon the credulous as persons of superiorsanctity and decorum.Had our suspicions, as to the genuineness

of the case, been stronger than they reallywere-nay, had we even felt satisfied that the

case was fabricated,-we should have been

perfectly justified in publishing it, providedthat, by so doing, we took the most effec-tual means of demonstrating the infamy ofthe fabricators, and the total absence of themalicious motives falsely and absurdly im-puted to us by our calumniators. Such a

case would have been analogous to that ofsuffering a party, known to have been guiltyof the crime of forgery, to complete a medi-tated fraud, and thereby furnisli againsthimself the evidence which may lead to his

conviction. We repeat, however, that weshall not be deterred, by thi’s solitary in-stance of fraud on, the part of the Scotch

306 THE GLASGOW FORGERS.

miscreant, who has endeavoured to poisonthe sources of public intelligence, from

availing ourselves, freely, and without sus-

picion, of such communications as may betransmitted to us from provincial surgeons.To this source the profession is indebted forsome of the most valuable ppers which

have appeared in this Journal ; and it is no

slight testimony in favour of the value ofsuch communications, that the SINGLE IN-STANCE in which a case entitled to no cre-

dit has appeared in our pages, is one

wherein our adversaries admet and boast

that they procured its insertion by fraudand forgery. We have no wish to keep thisfact out of sight, on the contrary, we arenow studiously travelling over the same

ground which we trod last week; and weshall take care to invite attention to the

acknowledged forgery of our opponents,whenever we may be called upon to answerthe stale and ridiculous allegation, that thefreedom of discussion, which we claim on

grounds of public expediency, is soughtby us for the purpose of gratifying privatemalice. j

For some time previous to the 4th of Oc-tober last, scarcely a week passed in whichwe were not assailed as literary pirates, forhaving published the Lectures of differentProfessors without their consent, and in de-

fiance of their remonstrances. These chargeshad been made against us, at intervals, foryears past and, for years past, we treatedthem with silent disdain. But, on the 4thof October last, as our readers are, for the

most part, aware, we published a state-

ment, demonstrating that, in every case

save one, wherein lectures have appearedin this Journal, they have been publishedwith the express permission, and, in mostinstances,. under the immediate superin-tendence, of the lecturers themselves. The

excepted case was that in which we main-

tained against Mr. ABERNETHY, and main.tained successfully, in a court of equityour right to publish the lectures .The fol-

lowing is the statement to which we

allude :-i

‘ It can scarcely be necessary to remindour readers of the distinction which we have

always recognised between the situat:on ofa public teacher and that of a private one,or of the principle upon which we claimedthe right of publishing the Lectures of Mr.ABERNETHY. The lectures of private teach-ers, which we acknowledge to be privateproperty, we have never published, asweshall presently show, without the CONSENTof the lecturers ; but the lectures of publicmedical teachers, delivered within thewalls of public hospitals, stand, as we haveuniformly contended, upon a totally differentfooting. We maintained this point fear.

lessly and manfully against Mr. ABERNFTHY,in a Court of Equity, and the issue of thecontest was, that the injunction which thatgentleman obtained against the publicationof his lectures was finally dissolved by theLord Chancellor. So much for Mr. ABrR-NETHY’S lectures. Sir ASTLEY CoofM’slectures came within the principle on whichwe relied in our contest with Mr. ABER-NETHY ; but Sir ASTLEY CoOPER cannot, atany rate, be one of those who has been

plundered of his literary property, for SirAsfLEY CoopER gave his express consentto the publication of his lectures. The lec.tures of Dr. BLuNDEr.L on Midwifery,though delivered within the walls of Guy’sHospital, we did not consider as public lec-tures three years ago, because, at that time,no certificates of attendance on courses of

midwifery were required by the colleges orthe Tjnivetsities. We applied, therefore,for permission to publish them, which wasnot at that time conceded. Subsequentlycirtificates of attendance on courses of mid.

wifery have been required, and Dr. BLUN-DELL has not only not withheld his consentfrom the publication of his lectures in thisJournal, but, as they were to go before thepublic, has added to their value by a revisionof the- proof sheets. Dr. ARMSTRONG’Slectures on the Theory and Practice of Medi.cine, were published in consequence of theintimation of one of his pupils, that the lec.turer would not offer any objection. Dr.A RMSTRONG did, however, after the appear.ance of the first lecture, object to the prin-ciple of publishing private lectures, inwhich objection we acquiesced; butharingexpressed his opinion, he added, that heshould leave the matter entirely to our.

selves. We urged the ground of publi0utility—and as he found that the pupilswere desirous of possessing his lectures, heafterwards consented to their publication,and acknowledged their accuracy. Mr. AL-cocn’s lectures on some Practical points of

307

Surgery were published with his consent,and the proof-sheets were revised by him.Mr. LAWRENCE’S Lectures on the Anatomy,Physiology, and Diseases of the Eye, werepublished with his consent, and the proof-sheets were revised by him. Dr. CLUT- ITEaBUCg’s Lectures on the Theory andPractice of Physic were published with hisconsent, and the proof-sheets were also re- I

vised by him. Dr. SPURZHEIM’S Lectureson Phrenology, in like manner, appeared !,with the consent, and underwent the re- ’,vision of the lecturer. The Lectures of Mr.BRANDE on Chemistry, and those of Dr.HASLAM on the Intellectual Composition ofMan, were also published with the expressconsent of the lecturers. All these factswe have had the permission and authorityof the several lecturers to state, from theperiods at which their respective courseswere completed, as distinctly as we nowstate them ; but we have hitherto disdainedto give this conclusive answer to the calum-nies of our enemies, and we have now, oncefor all, adopted this course, in order thatsuch calumnies, if they be again repeated,may be as much contemned in all other

quarters, as they have been uniformly con-temned by ourselves. We may furtherstate, that so far have we been from the im-

puted necessity of seeking to obtain lecturesby indirect or dishonourable means, that ourdifficulty, on the contrarv, has been to dealwith the numerous applications which havebeen made to us for the publication of lec-tures, and to appease teachers, to whose

urgent solicitations we have not deemed itexpedient to yield."

Since this statement was published, whathas been the course pursued by our adver-saries ? Have they ventured to repeat the

charge 1 No. Have they had the honestyand the manliness to acknowledge its false-hood? No. But they have changed themode of their attack. The calumny whichwas formerly levelled at us as publishers ofLectures, they now direct against us as pub-lishers of Hospital Reports, and, in the ab.sence of materials for a true charge, theyhave committed forgery to give colour to afalse one. They can make, if they do notfind, a basis for unfounded accusation. A

forgery costs then as little as a new heavenof clystal cost the inventor of the Ptolemaic

system; ard they can produce a fabricationwith as much facility as the Abbe SIEYES

used to draw a constitution from his pigeon-

holes. Verily we have most respectableand ingenious adversaries to deal withal;we apprehend, however, that they are toowitty to live, for the " cleverness" uponwhich they pique themselves as a title toadmiration, is of a species seldom accom-

panied with length of days.

IN discussing the affairs of the medicalprofession, we have invariably assumed inthis Journal, that the majority of that bodywere liberal in politics, and tolerant in reli-

gion. Though we never antecedently con.sidered the consequences of this opinion,as they might affect our interest, we find, ona retrospect of our success, that this pre-

sumption was correct. We cannot now,

indeed, on reflection, imagine how the mento whom we have addressed "ourselves.,could have thought diiferently on these sub-j ects from us ; most of them having receiveda similar education, and having as few mo-tives to decline obedience to the dictates of

reason and rectitude. Of all the courses of

discipline to which the human mind is sub-

jected, the study of medicine is, perhaps,the best calculated to improve the judg-ment and liberalize the heart :--=

" Emollit mores, nee sinit esse feros."

Unlike the other learned professions, it

leaves its votaries free from the influence

of prejudice, and preserves them from the

sophistry of refining’ on truth. Untrammelled

by the dogmas of the theologian, and uncor-rupted by the subtleties of the civilian, truthis the quarry which the student of medicine,with the eagle-wing of freedom, pursuesthrough Nature’s vat domain. Neither the

necessity of implicit belief confines the ener-

gies of his mind within an impassable circleof investigation, nor a temptation to err

through tiie allurements of gain vitiates hisunderstanding by a constant endeavour toarray truth in the garb of falsehood, until the1 distinction between both is sometimes obli-

308 DUBLIN MEDICAL BRUNSWICKERS.

terated by habit from his breast. The objectsof his attention, and the manner in which

they should be observed, conspire to raise

him above the narrow prejudices of the

multitude. However the storm of jarringinterests which desolate the moral world,

may rage, in his researches, at least, thereis repose; in his pursuits, peace. The

statesman may engage nations in conten-

tion ; the hero wade to victory throughblood; the divine hurl his denunciations, and

light the fires of persecution against a guiltyworld; his is a more humble, though no1less honourable duty, to triumph over error,and lead home truth captive in the car ojDiscovEBY. Necessarily admitted to a close]view, (by virtue of his avocations), of theconstitution of the physical world, than anyother order of men, he learns to look down

with contempt on the malicious littleness ojman in his attempts to oppress his species,In the earth, he beholds but one great com-

mon, destined, apparently, for the subsist-ence of all its various productions. In the

organisation of man, 11 supreme lord of all,’

he can discover no traces of superior con.struction, which entitle one race to be ele-vated above the remainder. There, at least,he finds them all the same, one neithe]

above nor below the rest, by an additionalmuscle, or a supplemental sense ; the wholein this respect, being cast in the one grealmatrix of EQUALITY. That his education

has a strong tendency to produce the effectswhich we have ascribed to it, we appeal tcthe records of literature and of philanthrophyfor proofs. We shall find in this mirror oj

the best works of man, that no body of equalnumber has contributed a larger quota to

the learning and science of their country, or

performed more disinterested feats of bene.volence, than the medical profession. It is,therefore, with feelings of astonishment andhumiliation, that we ever witness a depar-ture in any member of that profession fromthese illustrious examples, or an instancewhere the discipline which we have de-

s scribed, has failed of producing its naturali influence on the human mind. Such an in.

è stance, we regret to say, has been lately3 furnished by the Dublin College of Physi.; cians, in the person of their President, Dr.

, Lendrick, at a " Brunswick" meeting of3 the Graduates of Trinity College, held

3 at Morrison’s Tavern, in Dawson Street.

- In a reported speech of that gentleman,z attributed to him on this occasion, he is

1 made to say—" That his opinion has every been, that the repeal of the Acts for exclud.t ing Catholics from both Houses of Parlia., ment, would be a measure either unneces.

f sary or dangerous: unnecessary, if it went nor farther than to confer eligibility; and dan.e gerous, if it should be of greater extent:"

adding, at the conclusion of a long oration1 to prove this uncharitable position, that-f " He might safely say, that the great majo.. rity of the members of that body over

- whose interests he had the honour at pre.- sent to preside, entertained opinions similare to those which had on that day been ex." pressed." In contempt of the obscurity ofthe individual, and of the illiberality of thedoctrine involved in this quotation, we

;, should, in all probability, have passed bothr over in silence, if the sentiments which we

.1 have quoted did not throw light on a trans-

action which we recently discussed, and

t corroborate opinions which we then offereda as probable conjectures. We as much as

s said, that Dr. Tuomy had fallen a victim to9 the bigotry of the Irish College of Physi-y sicians on that occasion. Who will now

f doubt the truth of our assertion, when we1 state, that the gentleman whose tolerant

principles we have quoted above, was oner of the electors by whom Dr. Tuomy wasremoved from his professorship, and Dr., Grattar. returned in his place ? The en-

lightened President of. the Irish College of- Physicians would not allow Catholics to siti in either House of Parliament !-Dare he

’ allow a Catholic to retain his place in theschool of physic, when that body, over

309COOPER v. WAKLEY.

whose interests he has the honour to pre-side, and by whom he was appointed anelector in Dr. Tuomy’s case, are all of thesame liberal way of thinking as himself.

To draw the knot of circumstantial evidence,in which this felon against the dictates of

humanity has bound himself, by a confessionof his political principles, more closely,would be perfectly superfluous. Havingturned his own executioner, our services be-come unnecessary; we shall leave him to

his fate, for we are sick of the disgracefulproceedings of Corporations, and of theircontemptible minions. If medical men turn

from their proper pursuits to mingle in thedin of politics-and we should regret seeingthem forget the duties of citizens in theirprofessional avocations - let them bringalong with them those lofty and humanesentiments which the study and practice oftheir profession are so well calculated to

inspire. To heal, and not inflame, theyshould ever recollect, is their peculiar office.Let them, if they at all appear on the

stage of political strife, range themselves onthe side of reason and humanity, and notendeavour, by adding fresh fuel to the flame,to perpetuate that political conflagration ofthe passions in which their distracted coun-

try has been so long involved. There are

surely ways enough in Ireland for the am-bitious spirits of the medical profession ofthat country to distinguish themselves, be-sides seeking notoriety through the meansof petty party politics, so unworthy of theman of science and the philosopher. If we

mistake not, there are quite enough of poli-ticians to write and spout in that countrywithout the assistance of its physicians. Inthe dearth of medical literature in that coun-

try, we suspect a practitioner would have amuch better chance of making himself

known by a scientific discovery, than by adozen of political harangues. It often liap-pens, however, that those who are least

capable of serving mankind by scientific

pursuits, are the most willing to disturb

their peace by a perverse exercise of shallowsophistry ; a fact, the truth of which is notdiminished by the example of Dr. Lendrick,whose first literary essay has been of this

, baneful description.

COURT OF KING’S BENCH.

Westminster, Saturday, November 29, 1828.

COOPER v. WAKLEY.

MR. BROUGHAM, as Counsel for the De-

fendant, applied to Lord TENTERDEN to

name a particular day on which his Lordshipwould take this cause. The Learned Coun-

sel stated, that it would be necessary to calla great many medical gentlemen ; and that,as his client did not wish to inconvenience

any member of his profession, it would be

highly desirable that a day certain should

be named for this trial, as several of thewitnesses were in extensive practice, in dis-tant parts of the country.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT, for the Plaintiff,said, they were agreed on the propriety ofthe application in question, and that he hadno objection whatever, but fully concurred.

Lord TENTERDEN assented to the appli-cation, and intimated, that he would takethe cause on any day which the Counsel

might themselves agree upon.-Accordingly,FRIDAY NExT, the 12th December inst.,was appointed. The trial to take place atthe COURT of KING’S BENCH, Westminster,and to commence at HALF- PAST NTNE o’clock.

We may take this opportunity of stating,that we shall redeem the pledge which wegave in TuE LANCET of the 5th of Aprillast, and conduct our defence in person.We have communicated to Mr. BpouGHAM

the reasons which have induced us to wave,

npon this occasion, the benefit of his un-

rivalled talents in addressing the jury.This trial will be one of great importance

to the profession and to the public , and the