Chapter II: Part 2

“The man returned home that day, and remained a week when he came again to me. I called upon Mr. Webber and mentioned the ease of the poor man who had been to me, and handed to him the two notes I received from Mrs. Shirley on the subject. Mr. Webber said he was exceedingly anxious to see the practice of Homæopathy, and if my remedies failed in removing the stone, he would be very glad to operate on the man, if I would allow him. Accordingly on the morning of the man’s arrival to stop in Norwich, which was Wednesday, the 11th February, Mr. Webber accompanied me to his (Swann’s) lodgings, at Nurse Phillips’. We sent the man up to his room, and desired him to prepare himself—Mr. Webber, myself, and the Nurse followed soon after. I then attempted to introduce my sound into the man’s bladder—the one I had used before; on this occasion I found the instrument from being cold, seemed to be grasped by the uretha; I ordered the nurse to bring some warm water, with which I warmed another instrument and passed it through. Upon Mr. Webber calling the attention of the jury to this expression, Dr. Bell said ‘I introduced it with the greatest facility.’ I immediately felt a stone, and I then passed the instrument to Mr. Webber, who said he felt it also. He withdrew the instrument, and upon my solemn oath, not a particle of blood or sign of blood followed. After the lapse of a minute or two, Mr. Webber drew an instrument of a large size from his pocket and introduced it, and he also injected some hot water. (Mr. Webber here exclaimed ‘hot water.’) On my oath, gentlemen, not hot water, but scalding water. Directly after this instrument was withdrawn, the man left the house. On my next visit, it was reported to me by the man and the nurse, that he had been parting with a good deal of blood, and I prescribed accordingly—I never introduced any instrument after that. Every visit that I made afterwards, I found that the man became more and more dissatisfied—he said he was anxious to leave me and Mr. Webber and go home, and the nurse declared that Mr. Webber had injured the man by the injection. Finding that he did not improve—that his nervous system was becoming more irritable, I called on Mr. Webber the following Wednesday morning, who observed I had done evil in bringing the man to that woman’s house, and we went and visited him.

“The days on which Mr. Webber saw him with me, were the 11th, the 18th, and the last time, the 22nd of February. On these occasions, Mr. Webber spoke to me respecting my treatment, and that was the reason why the man’s confidence in me was removed—but this was not all—on the evening of Sunday, the 22nd, Mr. Webber visited the man when I was not with him; after doing so, he sent me a note, and here it is:—

Dear Sir,

Having since I parted from you, been again summoned to the
neighbourhood of Crook’s Place, I took the opportunity of giving
Swann another look, I saw no ground for altering the opinion I openly
expressed to you at our meeting; nor will I suffer the real issue in
the case, the security and welfare of the patient, to be prejudiced
by irreconcileable and strange disclosures which have been made,
reflecting most unfairly and ungenerously upon me, considering the
candour and frankness I have shown towards you, but to which I shall
not now further allude, the real object of this note, being in my
estimation of far more importance than professional differences;
therefore, let me again beg of you to lose no further time in
pursuing those measures, of which you at our first meeting expressed
yourself as “sceptical or doubtful,” but at once to adopt more
energetic means for the relief of the sufferer.

Understand me, I do not mean for a moment to assert that the
inflammation which you agreed existed, may not abate or be determined
without the application of the leeches, &c., but surely the known
sequelœ of neglected opportunity, such as ulceration, &c. ought to be
thought of, and if possible, to be averted—they being as effects
quite as mischievous in the end, as the cause—the inflammation
itself; the only difference that I ever observed, being that the one
destroys quicker than the other, but both as certainly.

The patient begged of me to write to Mrs. Shirley, and state the
facts of the case, and I cannot deny his request; but I will “nothing
extenuate or aught set down in malice.”

As you have admitted to me, that you occasionally give half-grain
doses of opium and of quinine (allopathic doses,) as “homæopathic to
disease” (?) excuse my ignorance, you will I apprehend, have no
difficulty in carrying out sound constitutional treatment, with local
means, in the case in point.

I am, Sir, yours in much haste,

W. WEBBER.

St. Giles’, Sunday, Feb. 22nd, 1852.
To Dr. Bell.

“This shows that Mr. Webber went in my absence and talked to the man. I had told him to leave Swann in my hands, but instead of that, he visited him in my absence. Up to that night, the nurse had invariably told me that it was the injection which had injured him, but after that, Mr. Webber and the nurse seemed to have set him against my treatment. On Tuesday, the 24th, when I visited him, he would have nothing to do either with me or my medicine, and the nurse suggested that I should send for another medical man.

“On Wednesday morning, the nurse came to me, and asked me to see him early. I went immediately to him, and found him labouring under a paroxysm of the stone. He declined to receive any medicine from me. The nurse then suggested that Mr. Webber should attend him—I was much surprised at this, as previously she had always abused Mr. Webber. I asked the man if he wished Mr. Webber to see him, and he replied that he did. About nine o’clock the same morning, I wrote to Mr. Webber, stating that the man refused to use my medicine, and that he wished to see him. Mr. Webber sent me a note, stating that the wife of Swann had just been, and requested that he would take charge of her husband’s case, which he had promised to do. The man after this remained five weeks in Norwich, during which I had nothing to do with him.”

The coroner commenced ordering strangers and witnesses to withdraw, previous to his summing up, when Mr. Webber asked the coroner why he had been summoned, and insisted on his right to be heard, after the palpably incorrect statements which Dr. Bell had been allowed to make—the coroner replied that he did not consider it was necessary for Mr. Webber to give evidence at all. {46} The foreman of the jury, (Mr. Coleman) said “He thought it would be no more than right, that as Dr. Bell had made a statement, Mr. Webber should be allowed to make a statement also;” this opinion his brother jurors coincided in, and much against the inclination openly expressed, and the significence of great and frequent impatience of the coroner during the time occupied in the delivery of the evidence. Mr. Webber, after being sworn, deposed as follows:

I am a M.R.C.S., Eng., residing in Norwich. I received a note from Dr. Bell on the morning of the 11th of February, who asked at what time I could see a patient of his who had been sent by a lady, to be placed under his care, to which I returned an answer, and agreeably to arrangement, Dr. Bell called on me, and proceeding on our way to Mrs. Phillips’, in Union Place, he said he believed the patient, Wm. Swann had a stone in his bladder. That Mr. John Coleby of North Walsham had examined him, but had not found one, and he therefore wished to be satisfied that he was correct in the opinion he had formed. That he intended to treat him homæopathically, and that if the man should not be relieved by his treatment, about which he was “sceptical,” (“as he had had no experience in this disease”)—he would then hand him over to me to be operated upon, as he believed I was fond of operating in such cases—I told him I had no fondness for cutting up anybody, but, that when operations came in my way, and they were necessary, I never hesitated to perform them. He said he was not in the habit himself of operating in such cases. I agreed to go and examine the case, stating at the same time that I would have nothing to do with the treatment he proposed. That if his system proved to be a sound one, I should not hesitate to proclaim it as a great boon to suffering humanity, but that if it should prove to be otherwise, he might rest assured I should expose it.

Arriving at Nurse Phillips’, I there saw Swann, who was a man about five feet, nine or ten inches in height, in tolerably fair plight, no emaciation, no evidence of extensive organic disease going on, nothing beyond a slight wearing from the irritation which generally accompanies stone in the bladder, and with nothing in his appearance to interdict an operation after a week or two preparation, nor to exclude the benefits of opportune and proper treatment.

It is usual when a consulting surgeon is called in, to allow him to perform the manipulation, but in this case Dr. Bell himself passed the sound—I stood by while he attempted to pass it, which in my opinion was of a very objectionable form, and such a one as he would be likely to experience difficulty in introducing, and not calculated to detect the stone when in. On passing it down to the commencement of membranous portion of the urethra, he came to the check which I had anticipated; he then made forcible attempts to pass the instrument, despite my advice not to do so, conveyed in the words “Oh do not use force; pray do not use force—force will do no good, you will do harm.” That instrument was withdrawn, but not until force had been used. Another and smaller instrument was tried by him, when the nurse suggested that he had better use some warm water, as she thought the instrument might be cold, and she brought some. A further attempt was made to pass the instrument, and more force was applied, and Swann cried out “Oh! sir, you have hurt me, it has gone somewhere, I think it has gone wrong,” of which, I myself, entertained no doubt. The instrument was then partially withdrawn, and I seeing where the difficulty existed, recommended that this sound (producing it {49}) should be passed instead, for it had never fallen to my lot to see such unskilful manipulation as was exhibited by Dr. Bell, whose hand shook considerably at the time. He then turned the instrument and effected an entrance into the bladder. He said he felt the stone, and requested me to take the instrument, I did so, and felt a grating, but not being satisfied, I requested him to withdraw his instrument and I would introduce mine. I have no doubt that the urethra had been lacerated, for on his withdrawing his instrument, blood dropped on my boot. I do not say there was any great quantity, nor was it likely there would be, because it became extravasated; therefore, I adopted my usual plan in such cases, which was to introduce an instrument as large as the passage. I passed the instrument into the bladder and struck the stone, and I believe the sound was audible to the nurse, who is accustomed to such cases. Dr. Bell not being satisfied, on this, I withdrew the sound, and proceeded to inject into the bladder tepid water, as no surgeon in his senses would do what Dr. Bell states I did—use _hot_ water, and if he would, he could not, for the patient would not let him. I then handed the instrument to Dr. Bell and turned the stop cock, allowing water to run out, so that the stone might fall on the end of it which it did, and was heard distinctly by those present, and Dr. Bell having assured me he felt it distinctly, it was withdrawn. During the progress of the examination, I asked the man whether he felt any serious pain, and he said, “I hope you have done, for I am getting very faint.” As he was very deaf, I put the question to him again, and asked him, did the last instrument hurt you? and he said “No; the last instrument did not hurt me.” All this was done openly. Dr. Bell said he was going to treat the man homæopathically; I said “he might do as he pleased, he might humbug the patient, but that he should not humbug me, and I would have nothing to do with such treatment.” Dr. Bell then mixed some medicine in some water in a tumbler glass; it did not readily dissolve, and he called for another tumbler, and in order to dissolve it, he poured the contents of one tumbler into another several times, and in the process, spilled one half of it. Thus showing how important _these medicines_ are in their _integrity_. It was arranged that if the man was not benefitted at the end of a month, he should pass into my hands to be operated upon. I remarked to him that that time would afford no criterion of the value of his treatment, as patients had what is called fits of the stone, and if the fit went off, he would take the credit of curing the man, when in fact he had done no such thing. Dr. Bell states that I saw the man on Wednesday, the 18th, but that is not correct, as on that day I was called to and attended a patient in Cambridgeshire. On the following Sunday, (the 22nd,) he came to me and asked me if I had seen the man again, I replied certainly not—he asked me if I would come and look at him, because said he, “my treatment does not appear to succeed with him, I have no great confidence in its success.” I went with him to nurse Phillips’, and never in my life did I behold a man so changed—his condition was that of a man suffering under acute inflammation. I immediately turned up the bed clothes, or rather the sheet, and placing my hand lightly on the body, I was about to examine the state of the bladder, when he shrieked violently, saying “Oh! take away your hand, sir—I cannot bear it—you will kill me!” I had used no pressure. I then turned round and said, “Dr. Bell, how comes this about? Why the man has got inflammation of his bladder, what have you been doing?” The man was rather deaf, but he caught the last words, and looking at Dr. Bell, said “you have done it; you have given me poison.” Dr. Bell remarked, “I have merely given him nux, {52} because his bowels were confined.” I then said “there is no time to be lost; I fear the man will die; you had better put on leeches, as soon as you can, and have recourse to fomentation, and the sooner the better,” when Dr. Bell remarked “Can we not go some where else and talk?” I said “No, sir, whatever I do every body is welcome to see and hear, I will be a party to nothing in the dark, and I will tell you, unless you stop this inflammation soon, it will soon stop the man.” Dr. Bell said “that he would not take a drop of blood from the man, and he mentioned the names of several persons who, he said, _knew_ the cause of inflammation, and that it could be stopped without it.” Being called into that neighbourhood on the evening of the same day to attend a patient of my own; and being anxious about the poor fellow, I called again at Mrs. Phillips’, but did _not_ see the deceased. The nurse said that she had used fomentation, but the man was in great pain; I asked if Dr. Bell was there, and on her replying that he was not, I said I would write to him, (and hence the letter which Dr. Bell has thought proper to produce in his defence.) I then took my leave—Dr. Bell continued to attend him, on the Monday and Tuesday, and on the Wednesday, I received a note from him, asking me when I could attend, but I did not immediately answer it, as I saw his motive for writing in such a way. After this, Swann’s wife called upon me and I did attend, and I found the man discharging mucous from every mucous surface. Mr. Crickmay who happened to be in my house at the time went with me, and also saw the deceased, and he enquired as to the remedies that had been adopted; we both thought the man was sinking—his pulse was almost imperceptible at the wrist—his eye was vacant—the surface of his skin was clammy, and there were other indications of that general decline of power which frequently precedes death. I naturally inquired what the man had been taking, but before the nurse could answer, he said “he has been giving me more poison, I know it was arsenic, because I have mixed arsenic and lime with wheat, and know the smell and taste too.” This is the condition I found him in—I prescribed for him, directing such treatment as I conceived to be required to meet the exigencies of the case. He continued much in the same state for four or five days, the principal symptoms being diarrhoea, and a discharge of a small quantity of urine, mixed with bloody mucous and pus, which he had great difficulty in voiding. He then rallied somewhat, but relapsed in a day or two, and fearing the threatened result, and being influenced by the remarks being made out of doors, which were loud and condemnatory of the treatment the man had received from Dr. Bell, I thought it necessary to call in Mr. Gibson, a medical man, with whom I was not intimate. On the evening on which Mr. Gibson saw the man, he supported him while I drew off his water, and after Mr. Gibson had examined him, he came to the same conclusion as myself, that abscesses were forming in the neck of the bladder, and in the tissues connecting that organ with the adjacent structures. Mr. Gibson said that he had nothing to suggest in addition to my treatment. He saw the man the next day, and he said there was evidence of abscesses having burst, both in the rectum and in the urethra, for a great deal of pus had escaped. For a few days the man rallied again, but we had no hope for him at that time; and those who understand these cases, will tell you, that when abscesses form, as the result of injury and irritation in structures adjacent to the bladder and its connections, they will, by a continuous irritation in the absence of controul, lead to the perpetuation or encroachment of similar action in similar tissues, as for instance, an abscess in the capsule of the kidney, which has been attested to by Mr. John Coleby as the proximate cause of death. {55} From that time however, the man gradually progressed, and thanks to good watching, good nursing, and a generous diet, he recovered sufficiently to be removed home, not with my consent, but from frequent importunities I submitted to his going home, and he having improved, to a certain extent, I told him that he was at liberty to please himself, as to the future; he could either be under Mr. Coleby’s care, or he might return to me, and he went home on the 30th of March. I heard no more of him for a fortnight, when he sent word to me he was going on well, and that he hoped to return to undergo the operation. From the cause before mentioned, and possibly owing to the less nutritious diet, another abscess formed—after this, it appears the vital powers began to sink.”

Dr. Bell declined cross-examining Mr. Webber, and no other evidence being called, the room was then cleared of strangers and witnesses, and the jury proceeded to consider their verdict; after deliberating about 20 minutes, the foreman returned the following verdict:—“_That William Swann died from an abscess in the capsule of the left bladder_,” but on the suggestion of Mr. Crickmay, the coroner substituted the word “kidney” for “bladder,” remarking that, that was what the jury intended. One of the jury said that the foreman had not given the verdict exactly as agreed upon; and the foreman then added the words “_and we are of opinion that deceased’s death was accelerated by improper treatment_.” {56} Mr. Crickmay said, by whom do you consider improper treatment was used? The coroner observed “_as for that_, _you and the public are to form your own judgment_.”

Thus terminated a painful enquiry, on which a large volume might be written in behalf of humanity, expressing regret, for the sufferings of the unfortunate deceased—expressing regret that his care, his counsel, and his regard shown to his wife and children should be so untimely lost—expressing regret that the good intentions of Mrs. Shirley should apparently, through misplaced confidence, be frustrated—expressing regret, that a professional gentleman standing in this case in an awkward position, should make a more awkward defence, in apparently endeavouring to cast the blame on others, who wholly undeserved it—expressing regret that a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, in Ireland, {57a} who is supposed to possess an acquaintance with the tissues and structures of the human body, apparently forgot that the larger an instrument, called a sound, can enter a canal at a given part, the less danger there is of rupturing a tube, or wounding a delicate membrane. But above all, expressing regret, that having apparently neglected the precaution given by Mr. Webber not to use force; having witnessed the agony accompanying inflammatory action which followed, he persisted to combat it by such apparently vague medical treatment. {57b} For this it appears was nearly sending Swann to a still earlier grave. His life, however was for a time preserved through the skill and perseverance of Mr. Webber, and the great attention Mrs. Phillips, the nurse, paid to the deceased. But the days of the poor agricultural labourer were numbered; and his earthly sufferings having ceased, an earnest hope may be expressed that his ethereal spirit—his soul, may be now slumbering in the bosom of his Father, and his God.

The cases narrated, plainly demonstrate that care, tact, delicacy, and discernment, are required at coroners’ inquests—for a two-fold object must be kept in view:—the one to ascertain the proximate cause of death, whether arising from natural or mechanical events, and the other, whether the law can take cognizance of, and bring to justice the incautious, the ill-disposed, and possibly the gross offender against the laws of his country.

To the departed, these duties are of little moment, but to the living, they demand the greatest attention, not the less owing to the voice of humanity towards the friends of the deceased than to individuals, who innocent or guilty, may be directly or indirectly, suspected or implicated, in conniving or hastening, the death of a fellow creature.

It may be inferred, that jurymen {58} ought to assert their right {59a} (whilst the memories of learned coroners are sleeping) to ask questions, necessary to obtain evidence, that their minds may be so enlightened, as to record just and complete verdicts, even in Mala Praxis, for why should truth be withheld, when the Science of Medicine, with sound surgery for its helpmate, are being sullied in glory?

But it must be borne in mind, that a jury of men labouring in other vocations, living in a remote village, seldom attending coroners’ inquests, whose education is so limited, as not to be competent to seek for information, which the knowledge of medical jurisprudence inculcates, are the reasons why they must and do rely on the coroner to extract the evidence required; that their ideas of right and wrong may rest on the solid foundation of truth itself, which cannot be effected, unless the judge on obtaining evidence, explains the law bearing on the question, and introduces both, suitably to their comprehension. {59b}

Unless this object is realized, coroners’ inquests are perfectly useless, and evidently prove there must be something “rotten in the state of Denmark,” which if enquired into, will be found to prevail in many instances even where gentlemen in the legal profession are coroners. But how can it be otherwise? Their knowledge of medical jurisprudence, if to a certain extent comprehended, must be far too limited to conduct enquiries of grave importance. The want of sound medical knowledge must prove the hindrance, because it is frequently observed when medical gentlemen give evidence, they use technicalities employed in the profession, and by stepping into details, they bewilder their hearers, and sometimes themselves also. {60} Therefore it may be assumed, that great tact and discrimination is required in the examination in any case where medical evidence is of paramount importance, and consequently it may be believed, that unless gentlemen are properly educated, so as to be able to elicit important truths connected with the science of medicine in all its branches, as well as the legal points in coronership, they cannot be capable of conducting inquiries, in all the integrity, which these solemn occasions demand.

In conclusion, the following queries may not be deemed impertinent or superfluous:—

Is it customary for coroners to be petulant, irascible, and over desirous to close their enquiries?

Is it customary for witnesses to omit signing the depositions of their evidences?

Is it customary for coroners to allow disputations to exist in their presence, which do not appear to harmonize with the solemn character of coroners’ courts?

Is it customary with coroners to omit calling evidence that might be material towards corroborating testimonies where conflicting evidences arise, or links in the chain of evidence are broken?

Is it customary for coroners previous to summing up, to order their courts to be cleared of witnesses, strangers, and reporters, who had been admitted to hear the evidence?

Is it customary for coroners to summon witnesses _in person_, especially in cases of adjournment, where grave evidence has previously been given on oath?

Is it customary for coroners at adjourned inquests, to call upon parties, in person, suspected of felony, to inform them of it?

Is it customary for coroners to allow suspected parties present at inquests, to hold earnest conversation with jurymen, during enquiry?

In inquests of grave importance, is it advisable for coroners to summon jurymen all of one parish, especially if the jurymen are directly or indirectly connected with parties accessory before the facts, in cases of suspected felony?

If coroners doubt the veracity of a medical witness, and they state their reasons for doing so, are they not bound to suggest to the jury the propriety of calling other medical witnesses?

Is it customary for coroners to omit to recapitulate the evidence at the summing up, and neglect to explain the bearings of the law upon the various issues?

Is it customary for coroners to dictate verdicts, instead of leaving juries to come to their own unbiassed, deliberate, and honest conclusions?

* * * * *

[Picture: Decorative graphic ‘finis’]

* * * * *

S. DAYNES, PRINTER, NORWICH.

ADVERTISEMENT.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR:
ABOUT TO BE PUBLISHED BY SUBSCRIPTION,
UNDER DISTINGUISHED PATRONAGE.

Revised and considerably enlarged, a Second Edition of

AN ESSAY
ON THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF THE GERMAN OCEAN,
WITH A
Design to arrest its further depredations, applicable to the
Norfolk and other Coasts, by taking every particular
respecting them into consideration.

* * * * *

THE Work will be interspersed with elaborate drawings of Cromer, Hasborough, &c., accompanied with diagrams, showing the full extent and meaning of the author, who, owing to repeated solicitation to introduce another Edition, and having obtained valuable and more ample information, announces his intention to comply, believing that this important subject may yet become, as it ought to do, a matter for national attention, and national expense.

The interested therefore are respectfully informed, that if they coincide in the desire they expressed, and the offer proposed, orders must be sent as early as possible, direct to the author, North Walsham, Norfolk.

The Work will be published in Royal quarto.

* * * * *

Price to Subscribers, £1 1s. 0d.—Non Subscribers, £2 2s. 0d.

* * * * *

OPINIONS of the PRESS on the FIRST EDITION.

“The work is another interesting addition to Norfolk literature, and
the plan for the conservation of our Northern shores, is worthy
attention, as coming from a gentleman, who, to some experience at
least, adds the claim of having paid considerable attention to a
subject of no little importance to the Northern and Eastern districts
of the County.”

_Norwich Mercury_.

“The subject of this Essay is indeed of prime importance—First in a
national point of view, as embracing particularly the interest of the
public, and concerning in the closest manner the preservation of all
the property of individuals situated on the contour of the coast of
Norfolk, from the North Westerly point at Wells, to the Haven of
Great Yarmouth.

“The main object of the enquiry is to discover the best plan of
restraining the ravages of the sea, during the periods of
extraordinary high tides; and on this point we entirely agree with
Mr. Hewitt’s general view, and are strongly inclined to believe that
it will answer in most cases where it may be judiciously carried into
effect”

_Norfolk News_.

“The publication of this volume may be considered well timed. It
contains much information respecting the tides and currents of the
ocean—the formation of the Norfolk Coast—the damage done by
irruptions of the sea, &c. We are no engineers, therefore we do not
pretend to pronounce upon the merits of Mr. Hewitt’s plan for the
construction of jetties, breakwaters, &c.; but it appears feasible,
and merits the consideration of those whose property has been, and is
threatened to be injured by the incursions of the ocean. And we
consider the work (which is dedicated to the Lords of the Admiralty,)
to be creditable to the industry of the Author.”

_Norfolk Chronicle_.

“The author is a gentleman, whose profession (a surgeon,) could
hardly be supposed to allow him much time to devote to a subject such
earnest thought and investigation, as the one he has here attacked.
Mr. Hewitt, however, has evidently applied himself to this question
con amore, and the work now before us evinces that he has brought to
its consideration, a mind capable of patient and careful research
into the many and varied causes that bear upon it. Though undertaken
more especially with a view to searching out and propounding a remedy
for the locality of which it immediately treats, a considerable
portion of the work refers to the Encroachments of the Ocean
generally, upon all exposed points of the coast, and there is much in
it that would apply to the Southern, as forcibly as to the Eastern
coast

“Mr. Hewitt describes the plan which he recommends as the best mode
of imposing a check to the Encroachments of the Ocean, and shows the
supposed elevation of the beach from the deposit of sand likely to be
caused by the inventor’s plan.

“The work is written in an earnest, but modest and unpretending
style, and the aim of the author is so good and praiseworthy, that
should it fail to make the impression on head quarters, desired by
its writer, he will, under all circumstances, have the satisfaction
of feeling that he has laboured in a good cause. While other minds
may perhaps entertain different views as to the utility or
practicability of his scheme, they cannot fail to admit Mr. Hewitt
deserves the thanks of his country, for the benevolent motives which
have actuated, and the patient and diligent care which has directed
his efforts in the field in which he has thus become a labourer.”

_Sussex Advertiser_, _and Surrey Gazette_.

“A remarkable ‘Essay’ which has met with the usual attention bestowed
upon Cassandric warnings.”

_Dickens’ Household Words_.

FOOTNOTES.

{7} Those havens that lie towards France, and have been thought by our kings to be such as ought most vigilantly to be observed against invasion. In which respect, the places where they have a special governor or keeper, called by his office, Lord Warden of the _Cinque Ports_; and various privileges granted to them, as a particular jurisdiction; their Warden have an authority among them, and sending out writs in his own name. The Ports are Dover, Sandwich, Rye, Hastings, Winchelsea, Romney and Hithe. Some of which as the number exceeds five, must either be added to the first institution by some later grant or accounted as appendant to some of the rest.

{17} _Vide_ Sewell, on the Law of Coroners.

{28} What were the tests applied, to prove that Laudanum had been administered to the infant? If the child did not die from the effects of Laudanum, what caused its death?

{32} Lord Lyndhurst, in a recent case, laid down the following rule:—

“In these cases there is no difference between a licensed physician
or surgeon, and a person acting as physician or surgeon without
license. In either case, if a party having a competent degree of
skill and knowledge, makes an accidental mistake in the treatment of
a patient, through which mistake death ensues, he is not thereby
guilty of manslaughter.”

“But if where proper medical assistance can be had, a person totally
ignorant of the science of medicine—takes on himself a violent and
dangerous remedy to one labouring under disease, and death ensues in
consequence of that dangerous remedy having been so administered,
then he is guilty of manslaughter; or a man may be guilty of
manslaughter if, notwithstanding _he has a competent knowledge of
medicine_, _he be guilty of gross rashness in the application of a
remedy or gross negligence in attending his patient afterwards_.
Also, where a man doing a lawful act, which is at the same time
dangerous, he neglects to use _proper caution_, death ensues, if it
takes place within a _twelve month_ and a day; but if his life
exceeds that period, the law will presume that his death proceeded
from some other cause than the wound.”—1 Hawk, P. C. 23 s. 90.

“If a man be sick of a disease which in all likelihoods would
terminate his life, and another give him a _wound or hurt which
hastens_ his _death_, this is such a killing as would constitute
murder.”—See 1 Lord Hale, 428.—_Vide_ Sewell, on the Law of Coroners.

{39} A term given to a fluid attending suppuration, one of the consequences of inflammatory action.

{46} In the course of the enquiry, the coroner remarked he did not know who might have got up that inquest, and that had he been apprised of it, he should have _appointed some person unacquainted with the deceased and the circumstances_, to have made the post mortem examination. Mr. Webber observed, “Sir, you cannot be in doubt upon that score, as you must admit, on the 15th of May, I enclosed you a note from Mr. Pilgrim, your brother coroner, to whom, supposing him to have been the coroner for the district, I mentioned all the circumstances connected with the deceased, and he conceived it was a proper case, in justice to all parties, that an inquiry should take place; and sir, I apprehend I have done your friend, on your left, no injustice, by getting his own friend Mr. Coleby to examine the body, for you cannot suppose, that the very cordial manner in which you saw Mr. Coleby shake Dr. Bell by the hand, he could have had any unfair or ill feeling towards him.”

{49} This was a new instrument, admirably adapted for the detection of stone, lately invented by Mr. Webber, and manufactured by Ferguson, of Smithfield.

{52} Nux. _Nux Vomica Strichnia_. This is a well-known remedy as a theraputic agent in cases of paralysis. If this, or other medicines used by Dr. Bell, aggravated the misery of the sufferer, possibly that gentleman, who it appears was educated in the Allopathic School, might have used them in larger doses than is prescribed by a real disciple of the German Hahnemann. Be this as it may, it furnishes a precious example to those who follow such vague practise in grave disease, where the life of the afflicted verges on eternity. Yet, surely, none but vain and ignorant people, assumed or real, can believe in the shadow of a shade, though introduced with all the seductive novelty which specious artifice and subtle ingenuity can devise, as promulgated in the doctrines of a visionary enthusiast and his followers.

{55} Metastasis or translation of disease frequently takes place at a remote distance from the original seat of mischief, involving tissues belonging to vital organs, and the afflicted sink through inanition or loss of vital power.

{56} A verdict is altogether a matter of substance. All the facts and circumstances must be stated with certainty and precision, without any repugnancy or inconsistency; and where it contains a charge, the charge must be direct and positive.—Vide Sewell on the Law of Coroners.

{57a} So stated in the Medical Directory.

{57b} This forms the nucleus for other observations, at a convenient opportunity.

{58} The jury are to inquire into and judge of all matters of fact connected with the death of a party, and in certain cases of flight, forfeiture, deodands, &c. and for that purpose to receive such evidence as may appear necessary. But they may give a verdict without testimony, where they themselves have cognizance of the fact; but if they give a verdict on their own knowledge, they ought to inform the court so. They may however be sworn as witnesses, and the fair way is to tell the court before they are sworn, that they have evidence to give.

{59a} According to Lyttleton, in which opinion Lord Coke concurs, if the jury will take upon themselves the knowledge of the law, the coroner is bound to accept the presentment which the jury make.

{59b} But it appears (and very judiciously so) that the immediate and direct right of deciding upon questions of law is entrusted to the court, while in the jury, it is at most only incidental; that in the exercise of this incidental right, the latter are not only placed under the superintendence of the former, but in some degree controllable by them; and therefore, that in all points of law during an investigation, the jury ought to show the most respectful deference to the advice and recommendation of the court.—_Vide_ Sewell on the law of coroners.

{60} Each Art and Science has its technicalities, which must be used to designate the component parts severally connected with a whole. Therefore, if hearers, particularly judges, do not understand evidence minutely given by medical gentlemen: the latter become confused, owing to using language perfectly comprehensible to themselves, but provokingly incomprehensible to others.