WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL
2
169 purpose; but I freely admit that I always entertained an unfavourable opinion of the case, and 1 suppose that no one, who under- stands any-tliing of the subject, who heard the evidence and witnessed the examination of the bodies, will assert that I was not amply justified in that opinion, although I willingly abstained from expressing it at the inquest. ’fo the fourth charge ; I declare upon my honour, that I neither employed, nor am 1 to pay any-thing directly or indirectly to, the solicitor who conducted the inquiry, and who, l have since ascertained, had a written authority from the husband of the deceased to inquire into the causes that led to the death of his wife and child. Yours, most obediently, GEORGE TAYLOR. Kingston, October 9th, 1330. GEORGE TAYLOR. WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL. REMOVAL OF THE IIOSPITAL. To the Editor of THE LANCET. SIR,—In this day’s Number you have not published the documents relative to the Westminster Hospital promised in your Number of the 9th ultimo, but you have done what, differing from you toto ccelo as to the merits of the case, I consider much worse, you have thrown your sword into the wrong scale, given the weight of your advo- cacy to the party which is, in my opinion, unquestionably the weaker in argument, as it is in numbers. Allow me a few lines in leply. Is it true that what is nosv popularly called the Westminster Hospital was " es- tahlished for the benefit of the poor in its immediate vicinity 1 " The history of the charity published not long since in your own pages (July 17,1830) answers No ! Is t the object of the "removal party, the con- [ version of the hospital into a medical school for the benefit of (more lucrative to) the medical officers? " No! such is not their intention..The removal will, I sincerely Lope, greatly benefit the officers, tor that Leuefit is contingent upon, and consequent to, the increase of prosperity that the charity must, from the greater prominence and con- venience of its new site, quickly experience. The general interests of the charity and the pnvate interests of the medical officers are concurrent and connected, but by no means, or rather by no necessity of things, autago- must interests. The greater the pubtioty and extent of accommodation of the charity, the greater its claims on the public, and the more numerous its contributors of all kinds ; the greater also, of course, the advantages oi the medical officers in reputation, ill hos- pital fees, and in every other species of enio- lument derivable from their appointments. The permanent and real interests of the charity and its officers recede or advance together ; they bear by no means an inverse ratio to each other, as you seem to think, but obviously, I maintain, a direct ratio. Is the site ot the present t hospital not an ob" scure one ? Compare it with neighbouring subscription hospitals, St. George’s, the Middlesex, where is the avenue to it like Piccadilly, or Mortimer. Goodge, or Ber- ners Streets possibly, for you speak con- fidently, you have an account of the number of fashionable or respectable equipages or pe- destrians that pass within sight of it daily ; if you have, does the amount equal the one- tenth of what passes by either of the other hospitals proposed for comparison But its present site is likely to be hereafter much more conspicuous you will say, possibly, but when 1 Its present site is wholesome, more so, you declare, than that to which it is proposed to remove it. How has that been ascertained ? Complaints have not i reached you that " erysipelas, hospital gan- grene, &c., are common in the wards." "The hospital is at the corner of the Park, &c." Now I have been some time a trustee, and have offictated as house-visitor, and am well acquainted with the hospital, and I affirm that such complaints have been made, and frequently made, though probably not to the " Dubtio. " bv which, fiom vour reason- ing, I imagine, you must mean by something equivalent to an advertisement in the " Times " or in your own powerful Journal —the "Times," as I may say, of the medical world. Furthermore, are you not fully aware that ague and other malarious dis- eases, are not unfrequently generated in the vicinity of the present hospital, and more frequently there than north of Charing Cross ? You object to the rent of 7001, or 8001., demanded by Government ; aie you aware that the medical officers propose to bind themselves down to pay 4001. per annum of that sum ? You know that it is of course in the power of the trustees to accept that offer, and to bind down their successors for ever to that, or even to a larger amount. But the trustees will not do so; it may be, it has been said, they are too blind or too indifferent no doubt to the interests of the charity to avail themselves of their power of prescribing to candidates the conditions of election ; nay, perhaps they will even make the present mcumbents a present of the 400l., some fine morning of the years 1830-1-2-3, or some approaching year ; wiil you maintain that ? The increase of wealth. and internal accommodation that would fol- low on the removal is an argument, valid, you declare, against the change of site. It is a reason why the benevolent should pa-
Transcript of WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL
169
purpose; but I freely admit that I alwaysentertained an unfavourable opinion of thecase, and 1 suppose that no one, who under-stands any-tliing of the subject, who heardthe evidence and witnessed the examinationof the bodies, will assert that I was not
amply justified in that opinion, although Iwillingly abstained from expressing it at theinquest.
’fo the fourth charge ; I declare upon myhonour, that I neither employed, nor am 1to pay any-thing directly or indirectly to,the solicitor who conducted the inquiry, andwho, l have since ascertained, had a writtenauthority from the husband of the deceasedto inquire into the causes that led to thedeath of his wife and child.
Yours, most obediently,GEORGE TAYLOR.
Kingston, October 9th, 1330.GEORGE TAYLOR.
WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL.
REMOVAL OF THE IIOSPITAL.
To the Editor of THE LANCET.
SIR,—In this day’s Number you have notpublished the documents relative to theWestminster Hospital promised in yourNumber of the 9th ultimo, but you havedone what, differing from you toto ccelo asto the merits of the case, I consider muchworse, you have thrown your sword into thewrong scale, given the weight of your advo-cacy to the party which is, in my opinion,unquestionably the weaker in argument, asit is in numbers. Allow me a few lines in
leply. Is it true that what is nosv popularlycalled the Westminster Hospital was " es-tahlished for the benefit of the poor in itsimmediate vicinity 1 " The history of thecharity published not long since in yourown pages (July 17,1830) answers No ! Is tthe object of the "removal party, the con- [version of the hospital into a medical schoolfor the benefit of (more lucrative to) themedical officers? " No! such is not theirintention..The removal will, I sincerelyLope, greatly benefit the officers, tor thatLeuefit is contingent upon, and consequentto, the increase of prosperity that the charitymust, from the greater prominence and con-venience of its new site, quickly experience.The general interests of the charity and thepnvate interests of the medical officers areconcurrent and connected, but by no means,or rather by no necessity of things, autago-must interests. The greater the pubtiotyand extent of accommodation of the charity,the greater its claims on the public, and themore numerous its contributors of all kinds ;the greater also, of course, the advantagesoi the medical officers in reputation, ill hos-
pital fees, and in every other species of enio-lument derivable from their appointments.The permanent and real interests of the
charity and its officers recede or advance
together ; they bear by no means an inverseratio to each other, as you seem to think,but obviously, I maintain, a direct ratio.Is the site ot the present t hospital not an ob"scure one ? Compare it with neighbouringsubscription hospitals, St. George’s, theMiddlesex, where is the avenue to it likePiccadilly, or Mortimer. Goodge, or Ber-ners Streets possibly, for you speak con-fidently, you have an account of the numberof fashionable or respectable equipages or pe-destrians that pass within sight of it daily ;if you have, does the amount equal the one-tenth of what passes by either of the otherhospitals proposed for comparison But itspresent site is likely to be hereafter muchmore conspicuous you will say, possibly,but when 1 Its present site is wholesome,more so, you declare, than that to which itis proposed to remove it. How has thatbeen ascertained? Complaints have not
i reached you that " erysipelas, hospital gan-grene, &c., are common in the wards." "Thehospital is at the corner of the Park, &c."Now I have been some time a trustee, andhave offictated as house-visitor, and am wellacquainted with the hospital, and I affirmthat such complaints have been made, andfrequently made, though probably not to
the " Dubtio. " bv which, fiom vour reason-
ing, I imagine, you must mean by somethingequivalent to an advertisement in the" Times " or in your own powerful Journal—the "Times," as I may say, of the medicalworld. Furthermore, are you not fullyaware that ague and other malarious dis-eases, are not unfrequently generated inthe vicinity of the present hospital, andmore frequently there than north of CharingCross ? You object to the rent of 7001, or8001., demanded by Government ; aie youaware that the medical officers propose tobind themselves down to pay 4001. perannum of that sum ? You know that it is ofcourse in the power of the trustees to acceptthat offer, and to bind down their successorsfor ever to that, or even to a larger amount.But the trustees will not do so; it may be,it has been said, they are too blind or tooindifferent no doubt to the interests of the
charity to avail themselves of their powerof prescribing to candidates the conditionsof election ; nay, perhaps they will evenmake the present mcumbents a present ofthe 400l., some fine morning of the years1830-1-2-3, or some approaching year ; wiilyou maintain that ? The increase of wealth.and internal accommodation that would fol-low on the removal is an argument, valid,you declare, against the change of site. Itis a reason why the benevolent should pa-
170
tronise in-preference another institution, adispensary in Villiers Street, Strand, known Iby the courtesy of the gentlemen of the" broad sheet," by the title of the CharingCross Hospital. To the soi-disant CharingCross Hospital, I bear no ill-will. It is a
thriving bantling, if we can judge by itspower of lungs. Its hunger-cry ii heard inevery quarter within doors and without, inthe drawing-room and in the sick-chamber ;its fosterers are many and indefatigable ; at
the bazaar we see beauty turn jewess for it; 1 Iin the temple eloquence begs for it, pietyprays for it, and wealth and avarice are!shamed into contributing towards its sus- Itenance and advancement. There is no
escape or "mistake," its wants you mustbear of whether disposed to contribute or notto their satisfaction. But to speak seriously;in favour of the Charing Cross Hospitalmuch might be said, but the claims of theWestminster Hospital are of a higher order.The Westminster Hospital has long estab-lished rank amongst English charities, andhas fortune to euable it at least to maintainits already ancient distinction. Why shouldthe Charing Cross Hospital be preferred be-fore the Westminster Hospital by the cha-ritable ? Is there not, at all events, room
enough for both ? Do the hospitals of Lon-don offer accommodation sufficient for onehalf of the sick that require assistance 1 Hasthe public ever suffered from competition ?But you seem to prefer for medical and sur-gical instruction, small hospitals to largeones; how is that? Must not large hospitalsfurnish a greater number of interesting andinstructive cases, and more abundant mate-rials for necrotomic study, and for clinicalteaching? Certainly. But large is a rela-tive expression. Now a numberof studentsso large as not to admit of sufficient investi-gation by each individually, without injuri-ous and intolerable disturbance of the sick,in the present hospital where the patients,though few, are very much too many, would,in a modern hospital twice or thrice as large,cause no inconvenience whatever, either tothe sick or to themselves. Each pupil ofan extensive hospital cannot daily examineevery interesting case. But he may care-fully study (as is very usual for example inEdinburgh, Paris, &c.) every second, third,or fourth case ; that is, in a large hospitalevery student may studiously observe theprogress of half a dozen or half a score im-portant cases. W hat more can you reason-
ably require 1 but I mubt conclude. I do notknow whether I have noticed every argu-ment you advance, but I cannot further en-croach on your pages at present ; perhapsyou will ailow me to address you again, for 1have not exhausted the subject. I confi-dently expect from your candour and respectfor justice the iusernoa of this letter, and
am, Sir, very reap6etfully, a friend and sub-scriber to THE I.ANCET,
Tuesday, October 19, C. M. R. S.
Tuesday, October 19, 1830.
REMOVAL OF THE HOSPITAL.
To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,—You have said a great deal against
the removal of the Westminster Hospital;perhaps you will have no objection to hearan advocate of the other side of the question.The institution has been removed three
times since its establishment: from theBirdcage Walk to Petty France, thence to
Chapel Street, and from Chapel Street to
James Street. On this last occasion an ad.vertisement appeared for a " house or pre.mises in any part of the city or liberties ofWestminster." Two suitable buildingswere offered, the present hospital in JamesStreet, and the house of Lord LanesboRoughat Hyde Park Corner. Dissensions, similarto those which now exist, occurred : partof the governors thought it would be ad-visable to remain in the same neighbour.hood, while others were persuaded that byremoving to a site more in the public eye,its welfare would be much promoted. Thewisdom of the latter, who divided and re-moved to Lord Lanesborough’s house (nowSt. George’s Hospital), was soon manifest,for the branch, if it may be so called, verysoon surpas3ed its parent in wealth andutility.We contend that the increased size of St.
George’s has quite superseded the necessityof a second large hospital in the same neigh-bouthood, for if you look at the map youwill find that St. George’s is surrounded bythe habitations of the wealthy, and that thenearest locality inhabited by poor, is Pimlicoand Tothill Fields. The Westminster Hos.
pital haa been supplied by the refuse of St.George’s; the poor, when they could choose,naturally preferring the larger and more im-posing institution : if this was the case whenSt. George’s had only 200 beds, what willbe the case now with 400 ?
It is in human nature to encourage a
charity which is conspicuous and tiourishing,in preference to that which is obscure and
little known ; the latter has been the case
with the Westminster Hospital, and it iecontended that if left in its present desertedsituation, cut off as it now is from the
wealthy classes of society by the new car-riage-road through the Park, it will gradual-ly lose those supporters who live out of old- Westminster, who will naturally transfert their subscriptions to hospitals, of the exist-ence whereof they are daily reminded. That
