BAIL COURT.—MAY 12, 1848. Ex-parte Dr. Berncastle
1
561 lege ?-No, I do not agree in the necessity for it; on the con. trary, I think it will do harm to the public. The old arrange- ment, I think, was much the best; but there must be an examining body in physic, pharmacy, and midwifery, and as the Society of Apothecaries are willing to give it up, provided the other party can make their own terms with the legislature, I have no objection to it. 261. Is there anything in your charter to prevent your exa- mining in medicine ?—We could not well do it without a new charter being given to us, or an act of parliament. Under it, a court of examiners in physic, midwifery, and pharmacy, might easily be formed. 281. Do you discover any objection to the College of Surgeons being at the head of the great mass of the medical practitioners of this country ?-None : that, however, is a question which is painful to me to answer, because it does not allow me to convey the whole facts of the case; the whole body wished it until the charter granted to the council of the College of Surgeons offended them; angry at the.insult offered them, they formed the National Institute, which they would never have done, had they obtained re- dress for what had been done by the new charter of the College of Surgeons. I am satisfied, if that charter were abrogated, and a new one formed upon sound principles, three- fourths of those gentlemen would wish to come back to the College of Surgeons. 282. And you consider that advisable ?-Certainly; they wish it themselves. 284. Do not you believe that it would be for the advantage of the public, and of the profession, if the differences which exist between the council of the College of Surgeons and the great body of the members could be entirely removed ?- Certainly. 285. And that college become the acknowledged head of the great body of the profession in this country !-Certainly. 292. Do you see any insuperable obstacle which presents itself to a perfect reconciliation taking place between the council and the 10,000 members of that college ?-There are some who would not agree to anything, unless there was a new body formed; but I think the greater part, probably 8000 or 9000 of the members, would be delighted to return to the college, and to be in harmony with it, on fair and reason- able terms. (To be continued.) BAIL COURT.—MAY 12, 1848. Ex-parte Dr. Berncastle. MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE gave judgment in this case. An application, he said, had been made to bring up the coroner’s inquisition, for the purpose of its being quashed or traversed. Of course an application of that sort could only be made where it was stated that there was some defect upon the face of the inquisition, or some material fact which it was desired to tra- verse. It was suggested that the verdict tended to reflect unjustly on Dr. Berncastle; but not that any defect otherwise was apparent on the inquisition that made it necessary to con- sider whether the part objected to was relevant at all, and whether it could be considered as part of the finding of the jury, because if it was not a part of the finding, then there was a case in point which had already been decided, when the ’, court refused to interfere. Here it appeared to him that the jury had exceeded their jurisprudictoin. They ivere empannelled to inquire into the cause of the death; they found the cause of death to be exhaustion, but they did not say, and no doubt they had plenty of disposition to say it, that Dr. Berncastle’s conduct had anything to do with it; but the jury went on gra- tuitously to make accusations against him. He was obliged to say that this application could not be granted. He would not dismiss the rule without expressing regret for so doing, be- cause he felt that great injustice had been done by the jury. He said great injustice, without pronouncing an opinion as to what Dr. Berncastle’s conduct had been in that respect. They had taken upon themselves, without authority, to pronounce an opinion reflecting upon Dr. Berncastle’s character, and there had been absolute injustice in the result, because the guardians had dismissed him from his employment in conse- quence of that, and without having heard that gentleman or his witnesses in his defence; and it was much to be regretted that the coroner had taken down the statement the jury had made. They were empannelled for a particular purpose; but they had no more authority to express an opinion on Dr. Berncastle’s conduct than on his (the learned judge’s) or any other person’s who had nothing to do with the matter. They had no right to express an opinion, and the coroner had done wrong in taking it down, especially after he had refused to allow Dr. Berncastle, to be examined, or to hear his witnesses. There was abundance of evidence by medical gentlemen in the affidavit, of important matter, to show that Dr. Berncastle’s conduct had nothings to do with the death; and upon the whole, with regret, it ap- peared to him that the rule must be refused.—Times, May 13t&, 1848. On moving for the rule, Mr. Bovill read extracts from the affidavits which had been made by Dr. Blundell, formerly lec- turer on midwifery at Guy’s Hospital, and Dr. Lever, the present lecturer on the same subject, at that institution, in which both physicians distinctly deposed, that having exa- mined the evidence taken at the inquest, they were decidedly of opinion that the death of the unfortunate woman was not caused by exhaustion produced by protracted labour. On several former occasions, we expressed a decided opinion that the portion of matter which was embodied as ap- parently constituting part of the verdict.and condemnatory of Dr. Berncastle, was irrelevant and illegal. In THE LANCET of last week we expressed this opinion, and subsequently, in de- livering his judgment, the judge in the case pronounced alike decision. If the motion had been more restricted it would have completely succeeded: on this point there cannot be two opinions, after examining the language which was used by the learned judge. In strict point of law Dr. Berncastle has not succeeded in his motion made before the Court; but morally and virtually, even as a question of law, Dr. Berncastle has obtained a signal triumph over the unjust board of guardians and a prejudiced jury, the judge-having emphatically declared, that the remarks appended to the verdict concerning Dr. Berncastle were decidedly illegal, and that if the motion had related only to those remarks, he certainly would have granted the rule nisi. This is the point for which we stoutly con- tended, and for no more.—ED. L. Correspondence. THE PROJECTED CHARTER TO THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS. ltlemO’i’ial addressed to the Right Hon. Sir George Grey, M.P., S’ecretary of Statefor the Home Departmet. Bath, April l3th, 1848. RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR,—I beg leave most respectfully to solicit your attention to the following communication.-- The fifth clause of the projected charter sought by the Royal College of Physicians of London is- " That every person now practising as a physician in England or Wales, and who shall have taken the degree of doctor of medicine at any university in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, after regular examination, (pre- viously to the 1st of January, -,) and who shall have attained the age of thirty years, and who shall not be engaged in the practice of pharmacy, shall, at any time within twelve calendar months from the acceptance of these our letters patent by the said corporation, in the manner men- tioned in the act of parliament, hereinbefore stated to have been passed in the present year of our reign, be admitted an associate of the said corporation, without any examination, on the production to the censors of the said corporation of his diploma, and of such testimonials of character and profes- sional qualification as shall be satisfactory to such censors; and on his proving himself to be of the said age, and on his assuring such censors that he is not engaged in pharmacy, and on his paying to the said corporation- a fee of ,25 exclusive of the stamp duty." The enactment herein sought is very similar to, if not quite identical with, what was supposed to have been the intention of the said college in 1845, when there was a prospect of a general medical bill being passed. At that time not only did great apprehension prevail among a very large number of physicians practising in England, but also a deep sense of the injustice that would be inflicted on them if the attempt of the college succeeded. In consequence of the existing excitement and alarm, I submitted to Sir James Graham, her Majesty’s then home secretary, these two queries:- " 1. Will the graduates in medicine of the University of
Transcript of BAIL COURT.—MAY 12, 1848. Ex-parte Dr. Berncastle
561
lege ?-No, I do not agree in the necessity for it; on the con.trary, I think it will do harm to the public. The old arrange-ment, I think, was much the best; but there must be anexamining body in physic, pharmacy, and midwifery, and asthe Society of Apothecaries are willing to give it up, providedthe other party can make their own terms with the legislature,I have no objection to it.
261. Is there anything in your charter to prevent your exa-mining in medicine ?—We could not well do it without a newcharter being given to us, or an act of parliament. Under it,a court of examiners in physic, midwifery, and pharmacy,might easily be formed.
281. Do you discover any objection to the College ofSurgeons being at the head of the great mass of themedical practitioners of this country ?-None : that, however,is a question which is painful to me to answer, becauseit does not allow me to convey the whole facts of the case;the whole body wished it until the charter granted to thecouncil of the College of Surgeons offended them; angry atthe.insult offered them, they formed the National Institute,which they would never have done, had they obtained re-dress for what had been done by the new charter of theCollege of Surgeons. I am satisfied, if that charter wereabrogated, and a new one formed upon sound principles, three-fourths of those gentlemen would wish to come back to theCollege of Surgeons.
282. And you consider that advisable ?-Certainly; theywish it themselves.
284. Do not you believe that it would be for the advantageof the public, and of the profession, if the differences whichexist between the council of the College of Surgeons and thegreat body of the members could be entirely removed ?-Certainly.
285. And that college become the acknowledged head ofthe great body of the profession in this country !-Certainly.
292. Do you see any insuperable obstacle which presentsitself to a perfect reconciliation taking place between thecouncil and the 10,000 members of that college ?-There aresome who would not agree to anything, unless there was anew body formed; but I think the greater part, probably8000 or 9000 of the members, would be delighted to return tothe college, and to be in harmony with it, on fair and reason-able terms.
(To be continued.)
BAIL COURT.—MAY 12, 1848.Ex-parte Dr. Berncastle.
MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE gave judgment in this case. Anapplication, he said, had been made to bring up the coroner’sinquisition, for the purpose of its being quashed or traversed.Of course an application of that sort could only be made whereit was stated that there was some defect upon the face of theinquisition, or some material fact which it was desired to tra-verse. It was suggested that the verdict tended to reflectunjustly on Dr. Berncastle; but not that any defect otherwisewas apparent on the inquisition that made it necessary to con-sider whether the part objected to was relevant at all, andwhether it could be considered as part of the finding of thejury, because if it was not a part of the finding, then there was a case in point which had already been decided, when the ’,court refused to interfere. Here it appeared to him that thejury had exceeded their jurisprudictoin. They ivere empannelledto inquire into the cause of the death; they found the causeof death to be exhaustion, but they did not say, and no doubtthey had plenty of disposition to say it, that Dr. Berncastle’sconduct had anything to do with it; but the jury went on gra-tuitously to make accusations against him. He was obliged tosay that this application could not be granted. He would notdismiss the rule without expressing regret for so doing, be-cause he felt that great injustice had been done by the jury. Hesaid great injustice, without pronouncing an opinion as towhat Dr. Berncastle’s conduct had been in that respect. Theyhad taken upon themselves, without authority, to pronouncean opinion reflecting upon Dr. Berncastle’s character, andthere had been absolute injustice in the result, because theguardians had dismissed him from his employment in conse-quence of that, and without having heard that gentleman orhis witnesses in his defence; and it was much to be regrettedthat the coroner had taken down the statement the jury had made.They were empannelled for a particular purpose; but they had nomore authority to express an opinion on Dr. Berncastle’s conductthan on his (the learned judge’s) or any other person’s who hadnothing to do with the matter. They had no right to express
an opinion, and the coroner had done wrong in taking it down,especially after he had refused to allow Dr. Berncastle, to beexamined, or to hear his witnesses. There was abundance ofevidence by medical gentlemen in the affidavit, of importantmatter, to show that Dr. Berncastle’s conduct had nothings todo with the death; and upon the whole, with regret, it ap-peared to him that the rule must be refused.—Times, May 13t&,1848.On moving for the rule, Mr. Bovill read extracts from the
affidavits which had been made by Dr. Blundell, formerly lec-turer on midwifery at Guy’s Hospital, and Dr. Lever, thepresent lecturer on the same subject, at that institution, inwhich both physicians distinctly deposed, that having exa-mined the evidence taken at the inquest, they were decidedlyof opinion that the death of the unfortunate woman was notcaused by exhaustion produced by protracted labour.
On several former occasions, we expressed a decidedopinion that the portion of matter which was embodied as ap-parently constituting part of the verdict.and condemnatory ofDr. Berncastle, was irrelevant and illegal. In THE LANCET oflast week we expressed this opinion, and subsequently, in de-livering his judgment, the judge in the case pronounced alikedecision. If the motion had been more restricted it wouldhave completely succeeded: on this point there cannot be twoopinions, after examining the language which was used by thelearned judge. In strict point of law Dr. Berncastle has notsucceeded in his motion made before the Court; but morallyand virtually, even as a question of law, Dr. Berncastle hasobtained a signal triumph over the unjust board of guardiansand a prejudiced jury, the judge-having emphatically declared,that the remarks appended to the verdict concerning Dr.Berncastle were decidedly illegal, and that if the motion hadrelated only to those remarks, he certainly would have grantedthe rule nisi. This is the point for which we stoutly con-tended, and for no more.—ED. L.
Correspondence.THE PROJECTED CHARTER TO THE ROYAL
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.
ltlemO’i’ial addressed to the Right Hon. Sir George Grey, M.P.,S’ecretary of Statefor the Home Departmet.
Bath, April l3th, 1848.RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR,—I beg leave most respectfully to
solicit your attention to the following communication.--The fifth clause of the projected charter sought by the
Royal College of Physicians of London is-" That every person now practising as a physician in
England or Wales, and who shall have taken the degree ofdoctor of medicine at any university in the United Kingdomof Great Britain and Ireland, after regular examination, (pre-viously to the 1st of January, -,) and who shall haveattained the age of thirty years, and who shall not beengaged in the practice of pharmacy, shall, at any timewithin twelve calendar months from the acceptance of theseour letters patent by the said corporation, in the manner men-tioned in the act of parliament, hereinbefore stated to havebeen passed in the present year of our reign, be admitted anassociate of the said corporation, without any examination,on the production to the censors of the said corporation ofhis diploma, and of such testimonials of character and profes-sional qualification as shall be satisfactory to such censors;and on his proving himself to be of the said age, and on hisassuring such censors that he is not engaged in pharmacy,and on his paying to the said corporation- a fee of ,25exclusive of the stamp duty."The enactment herein sought is very similar to, if not
quite identical with, what was supposed to have been theintention of the said college in 1845, when there was aprospect of a general medical bill being passed.At that time not only did great apprehension prevail
among a very large number of physicians practising inEngland, but also a deep sense of the injustice that wouldbe inflicted on them if the attempt of the college succeeded.
In consequence of the existing excitement and alarm, Isubmitted to Sir James Graham, her Majesty’s then homesecretary, these two queries:-
" 1. Will the graduates in medicine of the University of
