636

MEETING OF POOR-LAW MEDICAL OFFICERS.

IT is the intention of the Government, we believe, to give t(the Militia Surgeons, on the disembodiment of their respectiv(regiments, a full year’s salary as a bonus. This is certainl3somewhat better than the original plan that was proposed-thedismissal of the surgeons without notice, and without compen-sation of any kind! But it may be dpubted whether the im-

proved plan is any more economical than just. It would seem,from a calculation carefully made, that in the course of fourteenyears, the placing the militia surgeon on the permanent sta:Gwould cost but X50 more than the expenses consequent uponhis being cashiered with a year’s salary. These expenses in-

clude the payment for medical attendance on the permanenttaff, the examination of recruits for the line, and the year’spay given as a bonus. Under all other circumstances, more-

over, the retention of the surgeons permanently would be ofthe greatest advantage to the country, for then efficient medical.officers would be secured, for few, if any of the surgeons wouldserve again if the present arrangements were carried into effect,and on an emergency only young men fresh from the medical’schools would be found willing to accept these appointments.

MR. GRIFFIN’S movement is being vigorously prosecuted.At the great meeting held on the 30th ult. it was unanimouslyresolved to present a petition to Parliament and a memorial tothe Poor-law Board. Fortunately, perfect unanimity prevailedin the meeting; and whatever differences of opinion obtainedrespecting minor details, these were sunk, in order that perfectanity of action might be established. It is quite certain thatno form of petition or memorial would or could represent everyindividual opinion. This was not to be expected; and forbear-ance on minor points was therefore the more necessary. We

congratulate our brethren on the auspicious commencement of,an agitation, which, if properly carried out by the individual.unions, cannot fail to be successful.

MEETING

OF

POOR-LAW MEDICAL OFFICERS.

A MEETING, consisting of about three hundred Poor-lawMedical Officers, was held at the Freemasons’ Tavern, Great’Queen’street, on the 30th ultimo. Lord SHAFTESBURY pre-.sided, and on taking the chair, made some general observationson the importance of the movement, and the necessity of una-,nimity.

Mr. LORD then read

A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE LATE CONVENTION OFPOOR-LAW MEDICAL OFFICERS.

It will be remembered that the grievances and misrule underwhich the Poor-law medical officers and many of the poorlaboured, were so great and so much dem ncling a remedy.that, in 1846, a public meeting, over which Dr. Burton, ofWalsall, presided, was held at the Hanover-square Rooms,where clelegates attended from the provinces, and a large’numher of the profession in the metropolis, amounting to manyhundreds. On that occasion, important resolutions were passed,and a committee appointed, with appropriate officers, to for-ward the views of the Convention which w;tS then established,in order to obtain an improved system of Poor-law medicalrelief throughout England and Wales.The first report of the committee, which was issued in July,

1848, gave the result of a series of inquiries in a tabular form,which were sent to every Union surgeon, and of answers whichwere received from upwards of eight hundred medical districts.

These furnished much material for legislative interference, andformed the basts for subsequent recommendations of the com-mittee.

In furtherance of the proposed alterations, t deputationwaited on Sir George Grey, at the Home-office, memorials werepresented through deputations to the Poor-law Commissioner?,als) to the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and tothe Society of Apothecaries.

Early in February, 1849, a public general meeting assembledin London, numbering nearly three hundred, which was pre-sided over by Lord Ashaley (now the Right Hon. the Earl ofShaftesbury). His lordship on that occasion was pleased toexpress his hearty concurrence with the objects of the Conven-tion, complied with a recommendation, that as the Unionsurgeons had now rendered their organization complete, theyshould not fail to press their claims on the legislature, Rot as amatter of hounty, but as a right. A comprehensive petitionto the Commons was forthwith adopted and extensively signedby the meeting, and subsequently presented to the House bythe noble lord. During the session, in order to strengthenthis petition, it was deemed advisable to obtain from variousparts of the country separate short petitions. Fifty of these,numerously med, were forwarded from various districts ofEngland and Wales to the committee for presentation. Similarpetitions were also obtained by several gentlemen in the ruraldistricts: Mr. Wells, of Crewkerne, obtained eight. Otherimportant petitions were signed by the clergy, magistrates,chairmen of boards of guardians, as well as by the medicalofficers. These latter were presented to Parliament by the

respective members from the immediate neighbourhood fromwhich they cnme, while the former were entrusted to the careof the late Mr. Justice Talfourd, Mr. Forster, the late Mr.Aglionby, and Lord Ashley.Efforts were su sequently made to establish a Poor-law

Medical League, with Branch Associations in the principalcities and towns. Three thousand circulars, with a schedule,were accordingly issued, to ascertain the opinion of each medicalofficer. Only 263 answers were received to these applications.Letters were subsequently addressed to those gentlemen whowere favourable to the plan, inviting their co-operation as localsecretaries; but these gentlemen, wanting leisure, as well asneighbouring coadjutors, were in most cases unable to sustainan effective movement, hence the idea of forming the proposedAssociation was, for the time, reluctantly abandoned. Thethree medical corpor te bodies were again addressed, anddeputations again waited on the Minister, then Lord JohnRussell, as well as on the President of the Poor-law Board.Several members of the Committee attended the annualmeetings of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association atBath, Worcester, and at Brighton, at which resolutions favour-able to the cause, and petitions to Parliament in furtheranceof the objects sought by the Convention, were agreed to.The Regulations of the Board of Health, during the pre-

valence of cholera, gave occasion for a protest on behalf of theUnion surgeons against the imposition of unrequited services,and a third deputation then waited on the President of thePoor-law Board. It was received with courteous politeness,its plaints were recognised and sympathised with, but noredress was promised, and scarcely officially admitted to bepracticable. The Committee called attention to the question,

! in The Times and other public journals, by an advertisementheaded " The Poor-law Board, the Sick Poor, their MedicalAttendants, and the Rate-payers." Subsequently, 1000 copiesof this advertisement were printed, one of which was forwardedto each member of Parliament, with a note, respectfullydrawing attention to the subject of Poor-law medical relief.At the same time, advertisements were inserted in the daily

journals, setting forth current cases of hardship and injustice,which showed that under a system so essentially vicious as thepresent, the poor, as well as the medical ofticer, must frequentlysuffer.The foregoing formed a part only of the reformatory labours

of the Committee. From this condensed review, it will appearthat very great, very varied, and long sustained, were theexertions of the Committee of the Convention.The third published report stated, in conclusion, that the

Committee was reluctant to recommend the dispersion of -anAssociation which owed its birth to the existence of manygreat evils, and to difficulties perhaps insurmountable, butthat they were willing to continue or extend their exertions, ifthe body of Union surgeons would pledge a more uniform co-operation. The meetings of the Committee were held regularlyup to April, 1851, when it was resolved that the state of thepublic mind was unfavourable to further efforts at that time.

637

An adjournment consequently took place, until some importantpublic movement should arise to warrant the re-assembling ofthe Committee.On Mr. Pigott’s obtaining a parliamentary inquiry in 1851,

meetings were again held, the House of Commons was peti-tioned to hear evidence from several members of the Committee,specially named for that purpose, and efforts were likewisemade to obtain, if possible, such a report to the House as mightbenefit the Poor-law medical staff and the sick poor. All real

grievances amongst a people where there is freedom rise againand again before the public, and demand redress, how muchsoever they may have been tampered with, or for a time con-cealed. Thus during the past six months the inherent vices ofthe prolonged system have found a Fresh denouncing voice inMr. Griffin, of Weymouth, and Dr. Brown, of Chatham, andother gentlemen connected with numerous Unions. Their

plaint has led to an organization, and efforts for redress whichhave met with a cheerful and manly advocacy by the medicalpress, for which most cordial thanks are given. The Committeeof the Convention have watched with deep interest the rise andprogress of these combined exertions, and have gladly acted infurtherance of them. The measures proposed in the recentlyformed Association by Mr. Griffin differ only in some mattersof detail from those which were brought forward by the Con-vention in 1847. In order to obtain a large and influential meeting of Poor-law

medical officers, and of others interested in this important sub-ject, the Committee of the Convention have co-operated withMr. Griffin and his friends in convening this assembly. Tothis body, invigorated by large accessions for fresh effort, theCommittee beg to resign their delegated trust, with an earnesthope that success may result from judicious and well-sustainedexertion.

Signal official calamities to this kingdom, arising throughmismanagement and misrule, will live in the pages of history,telling of the Crimea and of Scutari. Side by side with thisrecord will be a testimonial to the honour of the medical pro-fession, evincing its self-sacrifice and noble devotedness to duty.

Could the quiet walk of the Union surgeons be prominentlybrought forward, and the injurious effects of the presentsystem on themselves and on the suffering poor be graphicallygiven through the daily press, the public voice would be raisedto denounce its operation and demand a reform, and that voicewould further yield to the Poor-law medical officers, the tributewhich is due to their habitual self-sacritiee, to their benevo-lence, and to their earnest devotion to duty.

CHARLES F. J. LORD, Hon. Sec.

On the motion of Mr. GRIFFIN, seconded by Dr. SIBSON, whodwelt at length on the value of the labours of the Convention,the following resolution was carried :—" That the Report of theCommittee of the Convention of Poor-law Medical Officers bereceived and adopted, and that the cordial thanks of thismeeting be presented to the Committee for their past exertions,and particularly to the chairman, Dr. Hodgkin, and the hon.secretary, Mr. Lord, for the valuable assistance which theyhave so long rendered to promote the interests of the poor, andthe Union Surgeons generally."On the motion of Mr. GRIFFIN, seconded by Mr. LORD, a

form of petition for presentation to Parliament (a copy ofwhich is annexed) was adopted. In moving this resolu-

tion, Mr. Griffin entered at length into his connexion withthe Weymouth Union as Medical Officer. He showedforcibly, by his own case, the tyranny and injustice to whichunion medical officers are exposed, both from the guardiansand Poor-law Board, and stated that he had retained his

position merely with a view of organizing an agitation for thecorrection of these abuses.An amendment was moved by Mr. WARDER, on certain

points in the petition, but was eventually withdrawn to obtaincomplete unanimity in the meeting.

Dr. WEBSTER of Dulwich urged upon the meeting the neces-sity of continued exertion in the cause, and stated his convic-tion, as an old reformer, that the more presentation of a peti-tion to Parliament would b productive of no results.

Mr. JOSEPH ROGERS moved that the memorial now beforethe meeting be presented to the Poor-law Board, and it is de-sirable that memorials to the same effect be sent from themedical officers of each individual union and parochial board.He dwelt at length on the great lahour and small stipendattached to a workhouse of which he was medical officer. Themotion was seconded by Mr. H. WEST, supported by Mr.MATTHEWS. and carried unanimously.Lord Shaftesbury was at this stage of the proceedings com.

pelled to leave the chair, and in doing so urged upon the meet-ing the necessity and policy of identifying their interests andcause with thoe of the poor. Their interests were undoubtedlyidentical, and their union would much aid the medical officersin their agitation. He knew that they wished for the welfareof the poor. (Cheers.)On the motion of Mr. JENNINGS, seconded by Mr. ANSTEY,

Mr. Estcourt, the member for South Wilts, who had expressedhis readiness to undertake the office, was unanimously chosento bring the cause of the Poor-law surgeons before the house ofCommons.On the motion of Mr. Ross, seconded by lllr. LIDDELL, the

meeting formed itself into the Poor-law Medical Reform Asso-ciation, of which Mr. Griffin be appointed chairman, and thefollowing gentlemen form a committee, with power to add totheir number :-Messrs. C. F. J. Lord, Hampstead; Geo. Ross,London; Jos Rogers, London; J. J. Luce, Swallowfield; J.H. Brooks, Henly-upon-Thames; W. B. Young, Reading; R.Grimbly, Banbury; J. C. S. Jennings, Malmesbury ; — Anstin ; J. Armstrong, Manchester; A. J. Edwards, M.D., Wivelis-combe ; H. Wellings, East Moulsey; F. J. Flower, MaltbyC. C. Cogan, Greenwich; A. W. Thurnall, Cambridge; E.Nason, Nuneaton; A. W. Warder, Dxbridge; J. Riley, Hal-neld: R. S. Martin, Kemmerton; R.. Ransom, Cambridge;F. Prince, Caxton; C. E. Prior, M.D., Bedford; R. H. Wight-man ; J. R. Hutchinson. St. Albans; R. Cammack, Benning-ton ; F. C. Dodsworth, Turnham-green.

It was moved by Mr. GRIFFIN, seconded by Mr. LuCE, andcarried-That the thanks of this meeting be given to themedical press.

It was moved by Mr. Griffin, and carried by acclamation-That the best thanks of the meeting be given to the RightHon. the Earl of Shaftesbury.

It was moved by Mr. Luce-That the thanks of the meetingbe given to Mr. Griffin, which was carried by general acclama-tion.

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT.

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned medical and surgical*

practitioners, assembled at the Freemasons’ Hall,Great Queen street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, on Friday,.May 30th, 1856,-the Right Hon. the Earl of Shaftes-bury, in the chair, -Respectfully showeth-

That the union medical officers of England and Wales, num-bering upwards of three thousand, do as a class suffer mostgrievous injustice. That they have the care, during sickness.of the paupers in England and Wales, who in 1855 amountedto 876,655 persons; in addition to these they are compelled toattend a large proportion of the labouring population, estimatedat about four millions.

’ That the education required to fit them for these importantduties is of a most expensive character, and requires a series ofyears for its attainment.That their services are of a most arduous description, requir-

ing attendance by night and by day, and exposure to the mostinclement weather and infectious diseases, by which theirhealth is seriously endangered and their lives frequentlyshortened.That the payment hitherto accorded them has been most

inadequate to the duties performed; as will be apparent fromthe evidence of Mr. Cane, of the Poor-law Board, before acommittee of your Honourable House; he says (No. 166) : -.

" My impression is, that taking the whole kingdom together,.the payment per case to a medical officer would not averagemore than 3s." For this trifling pittance your memorialistshave to find drugs, which, according to the evidence (No. 3269)," cost in dispensaries 2s. 1½d., and in hospitals 4s. 4½d. perhead," or a mean of more than the average payment of 3s. In.addition, there are numerous incidental expenses,-horses andcarriages to purchase and keep; servants, tolls, and taxes topay, and expensive instruments to provide.A committee of your Honourable House has admitted the

hardships complained of, by recommending, in 1854 --"That the medical appointments should be permanent."" That the salaries should be revised and increased."" That the districts should be examined."

That the first of these only has been carried out to anyextent. The Poor-law Board has itself acknowledged theinjustice of the payment, in its recommendation for the reliefof the poor in 1839, and repeated in 1841, "that the medical

officers should receive 6s. or 6s. 6d. per case in the rural dis-

638

tricts, and the remuneration per case not on the pauper-listmay reasonably be on a somewhat higher scale, but not toexceed 10s." That repeated complaints have been made to the Poor-law

Board, the replies to which may be inferred from the statementof its president, in his place in Parliament, on the 26th ofFebruary last, to a member of your Honourable House, " Thatin regard to the medical districts and salaries of the medicalofficers, these were matters not immediately under the controlof the Poor-law Board, they being settled in the first instanceby the guardians." To the guardians innumerable remon-strances have been made, which have obtained but triflingredress, and that in very few instances.Your memorialists, therefore, humbly pray your Honourable

House will take into your serious consideration the case of theUnion medical officers, and pass such resolutions or laws aswill empower the Poor-law Board to enforce the recommen-dation of the Committee of your Honourable House, obtainedby Mr. Pigott, in 1854, which your memorialists would respec-tively submit should be carried out in the following manner :-

1. That a uniform scale of payment should be adoptedthroughout the entire kingdom, (its rate varies as present from3d. to 14s. 4d. for each case of sickness)-e. g., in the Wey-mouth Union it ranges from Is. 2¼d. to 14g., the paupers, onan average, being equally distant from the surgeons’ residence;in many others a similar disparity exists.

2. That a fixed salary, founded on the average number ofcases attended during the last three years, be adopted, the sumto be calculated at not less than 5s. per case, with at least Is.extra for each mile the patient resides from the medical officer’shouse.

3. That the scale of extras, including midwifery, shall beextended, and embrace many operations and bad cases in sur-gery not now paid for, and that the officer in charge of theUnion-house shall participate in this arrangement with thedistrict officer, and there shall be no discretionary power togive a fixed salary instead of extras. ’

4. That all Poor-law medical appointments, whether union,parochial, or under Gilbert’s Act, not only now in force, buthereafter to be made, shall be declared to be permanent, sub-ject only to good conduct. The districts, however, to bediminished or increased in extent from time to time, as thePoor-law Board or public authorities may think advisable.

5. That a revision of salaries take place triennially in eachUnion, if desired either by the Poor-law Board, Board of guar-dians, or medical officers.

6. That medical orders shall continue in force for each caseof sickness no longer than three months, and, if renewed, becounted as fresh orders.

7. That a medical man, conversant with Union practice,have a seat at the Poor-law Board, and especial control overthe medical department.

8. That the Poor-law Board be requested to define the classof persons entitled to medical relief, and that it be not left tothe discretion of the relieving officer, or overseer, or church-warden.And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray,

&c., &c. ___

MEMORIAL TO THE POOR-LAW BOARD.

To the Poor-law Board.

My LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,—At a public meeting of medicaland surgical practitioners, held at the Freemasons’ Hall, GreatQueen-street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, on the 30th day of May,1856,-the Right Hon. the Earl of Shaftesbury, in the chair,-it was resolved-That a petition from the meeting and the medical officers of

each Union be presented to the Honourable the Commons ofGreat Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, prayingfor the redress of those grievances by which they have been solong oppressed.Your memorialists are aware that your Honourable Board

has the legal power to effect this reformation without the in-tervention of Parliament; but the utter failure of the nume-rous and urgent applications to your Honourable Board, leadsthem to infer that you desire to have your hands further

strengthened by the express directions of the Legislature onthe subject.Your memorialists, therefore, solicit Parliament to impel

your Honourable Board to enforce a uniform and remunerativesystem of payment to the Poor-law medical officers throughoutthe kingdom, with other beneficial changes which will befound embodied in the netition.

Your memorialists further request that your HonourableBoard will immediately, in some degree, lighten the burden oftheir arduous duties, by ordering that the columns for theweekly entry of visits to patients be ruled for three months, topreclude the necessity of writing names, &c., more than onceduring the thirteen weeks, and thereby causing a saving to thenation of twelve books out of every thirteen now used, as inthe case of the Amersham Union.That your Honourable Board will be pleased to look favour-

ably upon their petition to the House of Commons, and willgive it such assistance as lies in your power, is the respectfulprayer of the undersigned.

Correspondence.

PALMER’S TRIAL

"Audi alteram partem:’

[LETTER FROM MR. NUNNELEY.]To the Editor of THE LANCFT.

SIR,—When a man ventures into the witness-box, andundergoes a long and angry cross-examination by the presentAttorney-General, he can hardly expect to come out withoutreceiving some hard blows; and should he presume to ap-pear on the side of a prisoner against whom a strong popularfeeling has been loudly pronounced, he need not wonder if someof that feeling be infused into the examination by an astuteman like Sir A. Coekburn, some, perhaps considerable, misre-presentation, he may be expected to put up .with without com-plaint ; but it rarely happens that, under such circumstances asin the late important trial, where a man stands between life anddeath, counsel, in his reply upon evidence for the defence, ven-tures to make statements at variance with facts, and in orderthat he may have an opportunity for maligning the characterand evidence of an opposing witness, deliberately states to thejury directly the contrary to what has been deposed.A wide latitude is taken by counsel, and his statements are

received as those of a partisan, but I doubt whether the publicis prepared for so great a departure from the truth as was madeon Saturday last by the Attorney-General in his reply uponthe evidence for the defence, when he commented upon mine.It may be, that the statements he made were not wilful anddeliberate falsehoods; but mistakes under such circumstances,with strong expression of opinion founded upon them, are alto-gether unjustifiable. A witness has no power of contradictingthem, and they are published most unfairly, because most un-truthfully, to the whole world as uncontradicted facts. Feel-

ing this, I addressed the next day the subjoined letter to theAttorney-General, but I am not sure that I should have askeda place for it in the newspapers, had I not observed that LordCampbell, in his summing up, had on one question fallen intoerror. This mistake has led him to imagine that I was biassedin the prisoner’s favour. The mistake could only have arisenfrom a misapprehension of what I did say, and the importancethe prosecution attached to what is really a fiction, but whichhad evidently obtained such hold upon his Lordship’s mindthat it was impossible to dispel it; even though those of thewitnesses for the Crown, who had any practical knowledge ofthe subject, had admitted what I more distinctly stated; butwhich, being contrary to the notion the Attorney-General hadset up, and what, doubtless, he had been informed by sometheorist was essential to his case to maintain, must be deniedat all hazards. Lord Campbell is reported in some of thepapers to have stated to the jury that I had declared that afterdeath by strychnia animals do not become rigid. Now I never

said anything of the kind ; what I did say 1 now repeat, onlymore strongly than I did in court, and dare any one to say thatit is not absolutely and literally true. It is that animals poi-soned by strychnia do not die stiff and rigid; that the stiffnessand extension of the muscles by convulsions during life do notrun continuously into the rigidity of death, as was alleged,but that where animals are poisoned by strychnia, howeverviolent the spasm has been, it ceases before death actuallyoccurs, and that immediately before death, and directly afterdeath, there is a noticeable space of time during which themuscles are quite flaccid, and during which the limbs are easilyplaced in any position, in which they will remain when fixedby the rigidity which soon supervenes.

This is a simple question of observation, and if incorrect canbe at once easily contradicted and its error shown ; but so uni-