care, and afterwards tried and acquitted without entering SECT. V. into his defence, is likely, according to a statement in the Journal of Health and Disease, to be made the subject of parliamentary investigation. We abridge, therefore, from that journal an outline of the case as deserving, both for the interests of science and of law, the attention of the public.

Mr. C. T. Pearce is the Honorary Secretary of the English Homœopathic Association, and the coroner who committed him is the son of Mr. Wakley. The latter is a barrister, and yet a very young man; but he is closely connected, by feeling and interest, with allopathic practitioners. In summing up, he said that homoeopathy was looked upon by all the professional and intellectual men of this country as quackery. The principal testimony, or rather declaration against Mr. C. T. Pearce was that of Mr. Davis, belonging to the allopathic school, with which the homoeopathists wage an intense war. Mr. C. T. Pearce seems so have been a strong partisan of the homœopathists, for he declared that he would not "subject a dog" to the treatment of the allopathic practitioners. The dispute was really between the believers in two different theories of medicine; and the coroner, being biassed apparently in favour of one, committed the homœopathist to Newgate for manslaughter. The grand jury ignored the bill. Mr. Justice Maule, before whom the case was tried, pronounced a very strong opinion on the coroner's verdict, when he said, after hearing all the evidence for the prosecution, "How any person can say the man is guilty of manslaughter I cannot imagine." Mr. Membury Wakley took on himself the task for which Pope could find no fit person, of deciding "when doctors disagree;" but a higher authority than the youthful coroner reversed his decision, and indirectly passed a severe censure on his presumption.

and as

We might be disposed, as the young coroner was, some others were, to joke about the matter, but we cannot forget the consequence of partisanship, hasty decision, and bad law. A gentleman, perfectly innocent in intention, scrupulously careful in his professional practice-even if erroneous--who had to mourn the loss of his brother, and was himself laid up with cholera, that gentleman was, in the

SECT. V. name and by the instrumentality of the law, which is made and obeyed only for the common benefit, wrongfully dragged off to gaol, kept there for several days, and put to great expense and inconvenience before he could obtain a judge's order to be liberated on bail. He had then to stand in the dock as a criminal-for, being committed on the coroner's warrant, the judge was bound to deliver him—had to go through the ignominy and odium of a public trial, all because the young coroner had a bias towards a particular theory of medicine, and was not a very sound and dispassionate lawyer. A similar infliction may fall on any man from such a mode of administering the law; and if we wish to guard ourselves against injustice, and retain for the law the respect and honour it deserves, we must insist on Mr. Membury Wakley, or whoever may be coroner, being more careful in his proceedings. As Mr. C. T. Pearce has no remedy at law against the coroner, and as the parliament is never better employed than when it is inquiring into and redressing, as far as it can, the wrongs done by persons in authority, the case seems a proper one to be brought under the notice of the House of Commons.

The question of science involved concerns our health as that of law concerns our liberties. Of the causes of such diseases as cholera, medical men are as ignorant nearly as the rest of the world; of the means of cure, and of the operation of remedies, generally, on the human body, their knowledge is little better than conjectural; and whether they be homœopathists or allopathists, it is unbecoming to be dogmatic and positive in their assertions. The best medical man we are acquainted with-one of the most distinguished and accomplished surgeons of the day -is at the same time the most cautious in prescribing and the least positive in his anticipations. An ordinary apothecary is ready for every emergency, and prescribes for every case that he is summoned to off hand, as if he were Esculapius himself, knew at a glance the whole history and nature of the disease, and was as certain of the operation of his drugs as a smith is of the effect of his forgefire on a piece of iron. Amongst such men, looking out for practice as a means of living, we meet with truculent dis

putants about the merits of their own and the quackery of SECT. V. others' theories of physic. Less ready to inquire and observe than to gather pelf, they hunt after fees and neglect knowledge. They see no other way to reach eminence and wealth than to press down a rival. Science gets crushed or distorted between their personal quarrels, and the healing art, founded on ill-understood principles, divested of truth and beauty, neither deserves nor commands the confidence of mankind.

Considering the complex nature of the animal functions, the merely empirical and conjectural knowledge which the most enlightened physicians have of the expected operations of medicines on any given patient, and considering the importance to all of the preservation of life and health, there is no science which ought to be prosecuted with more care than therapeutics. It is, therefore, offensive to the public, and disgraceful to medical men, to impede investigation by hard names, and rabidly attack individuals instead of coolly examining the discoveries they allege they have made. We are no advocates of homoeopathy; but we can safely say, that allopathy has been in many cases so little successful, that it ought to welcome instruction and assistance, from whatever quarter it may come.

CHAPTER IX.-Evidences that would have been brought at the Trial.

The English Homœopathic Association did its duty by its member, Mr. C. T. Pearce. A defence was prepared which would have placed his medical conduct, in the treatment of his brother, on the highest basis, namely, the scientific. The subjoined gives a brief résumé of the witnesses who would have been examined, and of the points which would have been established.

Mr. Simmons is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, resides at 156, Tooley-street, will state that he is not a homœopathic practitioner : That he has known Dr. Kelsall (who is a homœopathic practitioner) about two months: that their acquaintance commenced when witness was unwell himself, and hearing of the Dr.'s successful treatment of cholera, ૨ ૨

SECT. V. witness sent to request he would prescribe for him. Witness had dysentery: that he did not then know that Dr. Kelsall was a homœopathist: that when witness was convalescing, Dr. Kelsall accidentally called, and just before he arrived, witness's wife had been attacked with unequivocal symptoms of cholera, i. e. collapse: that Dr. Kelsall took charge of witness's wife's case, gave her only homœopathic medicines: that she was dangerously ill, and Dr. Kelsall allowed her to take no aliment whatever during seven days, except plain water, a teaspoonful at a time: that it is witness's firm conviction that his wife would have died, had she taken any food during the time it was forbidden; and, although she frequently desired food, and said she should be starved, it was not granted: that witness's wife's health has been exceedingly delicate for at least fifteen years, and that she is not a likely subject to bear starvation; but, that she certainly benefited by seven days total abstinence from food.

William Alexander Hills, No. 10, Grove-road, Palmer's village, Westminster, will prove: That he was taken ill with cholera, on Wednesday, 5th Sept. 1849: that he was attended by Dr. Curie from that day: that from that day until Sunday, the 30th Sept. 1849, (twenty-five days), witness took no food: that the only thing which witness did take during that time was iced-water, and water in which toast had been immersed, and the medicines prescribed by Dr. Curie: that he so abstained from food by the advice of Dr. Curie: that on Sunday, the 30th Sept. 1849, he took only some beef-tea, and that he took it at first only in small quantities, one spoonful of beef-tea to two of water, and even that was oppressive to him.

E. H. Gould, 70, Lombard-street, will state: That the prisoner (C. T. Pearce), attended witness's wife while labouring under an attack of Asiatic cholera that when the prisoner was called in she was considered in great danger, she had violent cramps and vomitings: that the prisoner kept her without food for four days: that after that, he only allowed her to take very small quantities at first, only a teaspoonful of water twice or thrice in an hour: that the collapse state of cholera was followed by fever and wandering of mind: that witness with the consent of the prisoner called in Dr. Epps, who approved of the prisoner's treatment: that neither witness nor his wife had previously any faith in homœopathy: that so rapid was witness's wife's improvement under the prisoner's treatment, that although not expected to survive many hours on the 27th Sept., she on the 4th of October, paid a visit to a relative, three miles distant from her home.

Jenny S., governess in the family of the Earl of Wilton, Heaton-park, Manchester, will state: That she is a native of Switzerland, and that she left that country about seven years, to accompany the family of the Chevalier Bunsen, to England: that shortly after her arrival in England she

had a violent attack of illness, and was placed under Dr. Curie's care: that SECT. V witness was kept thirty days without any food except as after mentioned: that during the first fourteen days witness took nothing but sugared-water, that for the next fourteen days she took nothing but plain water, that at the end of the twenty-eight days as witness appeared somewhat better, Dr. Curie gave her three small spoonsfulls of Gelée de Viande, which occasioned a relapse, and she was again for ten days in indescribable agony: that witness was in so weak a state when first placed under Dr. Curie's care, that he gave her food and persisted in doing so until witness became much worse, and she then began to abstain from food and continued to do so, as before stated: that witness ultimately recovered under Dr. Curie's treatment, and has since enjoyed good health, while before she had been for several years on a bed of sickness, excepting only short periods of convalescence, during one of which she came to England, as before stated.

Samuel Bee, 11, Kent-place, Old Kent-road, shoemaker, will state: That witness had an attack of Asiatic cholera on the 19th August, 1849, and was attended by Dr. Kelsall: that witness was by the Dr.'s directions kept without food for thirteen days, viz., from the 19th to the 31st August, except as after stated: that during the whole time witness craved incessantly for food and said he was being starved, but for the last three days, as witness began to get better, the craving diminished that when witness was craving for food his wife gave him (but against the Dr.'s directions) about a wine-glass of weak milk and water, and on another occasion the doctor yielded to the urgent entreaty of witness's brother, to allow him to take two teaspoonsfull of weak brandy and water, but he forewarned witness of the effects which would follow the taking of it: that on both occasions after taking the milk and water and the brandy and water witness felt much worse, all the symptoms were aggravated, and after taking the brandy and water witness thought he should have died: that the cholera was worse in the neighbourhood of witness's residence than any other part of London, and many of witness's neighbours, who were treated by the ordinary doctors, died, and witness believed that he also should have died if he had been treated by them.

Mrs. Matilda Shaw, 3, Wellington-place, Kent-road, will state: That witness had an attack of Asiatic cholera in August, 1849, and was attended by Dr. Kelsall: that witness by the doctor's advice abstained from food for ten days, and during that time took nothing but water, except the medicines prescribed by Dr. Kelsall, until the tenth day, when witness was allowed to take two teaspoonsfull of beef-tea: that witness's husband had also an attack of cholera and was kept by Dr. Kelsall without food for five days: that both witness and her husband had at first a desire for food, but Dr. Kelsall would not allow any to be given, and the desire afterwards