199REJECTION OF MERRICK’S APPEAL.

as the Bill becomes a law. " PHILO" hopesthat a similar measure may be introduced

for England." Let it come. Could it

pass into a law? That is another question,and it is one which will be answered in the

negative by nearly twenty thousand medical

practitioners of this empire.« PHILO" asks " why Mr. WAKLEY does ,

"not himself bring forward a Bill for reme-

drying the abuses of the profession ?" Theanswer is brief. He thought it better to

wait for the printing of the evidence whichwas taken before the Parliamentary Medi-cal Committee, and for the completion of thelabours of Mr. WARBURTON, feeling that byrushing precipitately forward in such a

cause he might injure those interests whichit has been the anxious object of the lastfifteen years of his life to advance and

protect.

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH.

Sittings in Banco, Friday, April 27th, 1838

MERRICK v. WAKLEY.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that thiswas an action for libel against the defend-ant. A justification had been pleaded, aspecial jury had awarded to the plaintiffONE FARTHING damages, and Mr. BaronALDERSON, the Judge who presided at thetrial, had considered it to be his duty tocertify, in order to deprive the plaintiff ofhis costs. In the present sitting, Mr. Ser-jeant LuDLOW, the counsel for the plaintiff,had moved to set aside the verdict for hisclient, on the ground that evidence hadbeen reiected at the time. which ought tohave been received, and also on theground of the insufficiency of the damages.On the latter ground, certainly, the Courtwould not interfere. The question of da-mages was for the special consideration ofthe Jury. The rejected evidence consistedof entries which the plaintiff alleged hehad made in his own visiting-book. TheCourt were now of opinion that the Judgehad decided correctly in rejecting testimonyof this description. If parties were allow-ed to form evidence for themselves, by en-tries in their own books, he (Lord Denman)knew not how the cause of justice could besustained in a Court of Law. The Court,therefore, were unanimously of opinion,that the rule calling on the defendant toshow cause why a new trial should not begranted, should be refused.

* ** In addition to the " ONE FARTHING,"which MERRICK obtained as damages for

the injury which the jury supposea ms

professional character to have received bythe publication of an account of his skilfulmode of treating poor PROTHERO, who wasafflicted with a strangulated inguinal hernia,which the said MERRicK allowed to burst,leaving in its place an artificial anus,

without relieving the patient by means of afew incisions with a sharp instrument, inaddition to this FARTHING, he has had the

certificate of the Judge to deprive him ofhis costs ; and now, having incur) ed addi-tional expense in an appeal to the Court fora new trial, he has received a peremptoryand final refusal.

’ In setting down the figures relating to

MERRICK’S costs in the last LANCET, the

amount was incorrectly printed at one hiin,dred and fifty, instead of two hundred andfifty pounds. But we may now state, onthe authority of our solicitors, Messrs.

LOFTY and POTTER, that the costs on behalfof the plaintiff alone, had not Mr. BaronALDERSON most properly and honourablycertified to deprive MERRICK of them, wouldhave amounted to upwards of three hun-dred and fifty pounds. Here is evidence of

the state of the law of libel!

Damages, One Farthing.Costs of plaintiff and defendant, upwards

of Five Hundred Pounds.

In addition to the above advantageswhich MERRICK has acquired, we have

been informed that the Poor-Law Commis-

sioners, to their credit, have intimated to

the Guardians of the Kington Union, thatMERRICK is no longer to be permitted to hold

the office of medical officer in that Union. If

SiLL, MERRICK’S lawyer, should have any

new client apply to him for professional aid,we thus publicly announce to him that hemay apply to us for a character.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, April 30th, 1838.

IRISH MEDICAL CHARITIES BILL.

. Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH moved

the order of the day for the second readingof this Bill. It was found, he said, that itwould be desirable to make some alterations

200

in the measure, more especially with refer- ration, and then the House would go into theence to the qualification and education consideration of clauses which had been seenclauses. He was therefore induced to ask and understood. Hon. Members would thenthose gentlemen who had opposed the Bill, know what they were about, and would notto consent to have the Bill read a second be granting powers and privileges withouttime, in order that he might then go into a investigation.Committee, proforma, on as early a day as Mr. WARBURTON approved of the pro-possible, when, the Bill beingreprinted with posal for taking the second reading at thethe proposed alterations, the House would present time, on condition that the recom.have the fullest opportunity, at a future mitment should be taken some time hence;stage, of examining the measure in its al- but he begged it to be understood that iatered, and as he trusted it would appear to agreeing to the second reading he was notbe, its amended shape. binding himself to support a single clause

Mr. W. S. O’BRIEN felt it to be his duty of the Bill. One defect he thought was pe.to object to the course which the hon. gen- culiarly important, namely, that of makingtleman proposed to pursue. There was all the Commissioners to consist of physi-scarcely any part of the Bill which he con- cians and surgeons. He thought that thesidered was entitled to the sanction of the powers to be exercised under such a lawHouse, and he thought that a measure of should not be committed to the control ex-such a nature ought not to be permitted to clusively of medical men, but that some ofadvance a single step without opposition, the Commissioners should be intelligent andHe should therefore resist the motion for influential laymen. It would be in the high-the second reading. est degree inexpedient to admit medicalMr. WAKLEY said that he had devoted practitioners alone to exercise control as a

much attention to this question, and he was ruling body over the medical charities ofinclined to differ from the last speaker, and Ireland. Although, therefore, he consentedagree to the proposition of the hon. Member to the second reading, he was not preparedfor Roscommon. As it was found by the to agree to the clauses.hon. mover of the Bill, and its other pro- Sir ROBERT PEEL would not resist

moters, that the measure required altera- the second reading, but he thought it of thetions, it was better to see the proposed greatest importance that. on the recom-

changes, than go into Committee upon mitment of the Bill, there should be a fullclauses which had not yet been submitted discussion of the question on which it wasto the House. Reserving, therefore, to him- proposed to legislate.self an undoubted right to discuss the prin- Lord MORPETH declared, that he wasciple of the Bill, and to oppose any of its strongly in favour of taking the secondclauses in any future stage, he should not reading then; but it was his duty to state,object to the second reading, with a distinct that he did not consider that, iu agreeingunderstanding that the Bill was to be re- to the second reading, he supported a singie printed, and that the recommitment should clause which the Bill contained. He, astake place at a distant day, after ample op- well as other Hon. Members, would feel asportunity had been afforded for examining unfettered by allowing the Bill to pro-the document in its altered condition. gress a single step, as though no such pro-Sir ROBERT FERGUSON was strongly ceeding had taken place.

opposed to the measure, and said he should Mr. FRENCH said, that, with the per.take the sense of the House on it now-on mission of the House he would go intothe second reading. There were powers in Committee on the Bill, pro forma, on thethe Bill which might be most perniciously following evening. He would then get theexercised. Amongst them was that of the Bill reprinted at once, and move that it heassessments which were to be made for re- recommitted on Wednesday, the 16th ofpaying whatever money was to be advanced May.

’

out of the Consolidated Fund, and expended The Bill was then read a second time.by the direction of the Lord Lieutenant, inthe erection of hospitals and other charit- able medical institutions. He questioned if any alterations could reconcile him to the Tuesday, May 1st, 1838.details of the Bill. He should therefore re- On the motion of Mr. FRENCH, thesist the motion for the second reading. House went into Committee on the IrishMr. O’CONNELL concurred in the view Medical Charities Bill, pro forma. The new

of the question which had been taken by the hon. Member for Finsbury. It would clauses having been introduced, without

be far better to allow the second reading to discussion, the Bill was reported, and or-take place on the present occasion, and then dered to be printed, and the further consi-examine the Bill in its amended form. The deration of the report was directed to berecommitment might, as had been suggested, taken on the 16th of Mav.be taken at a distant day, after due delibe- ’