835

ject advocated by you, Sir,-I mean thepublic trial, or concours ; for this may be ad-vocated on grounds distinct from those ofthe imputed dishonesty of any party. Iwould gladly make a few remarks on thisimportant measure, not for the purpose ofopposing its adoption in any case, but inor-der to point out a few difliculties to be met,and to discuss the mechanism by which itis to be worked. I find, however, that thisletter has grown already to a considerablelength, and that I must defer all referenceto the subject to another communication.

I have now, Sir, only to say, in conclusion,that with a view to assist you and others inarriving at truth, I have detailed some facts,and alluded to some persons. I am pre-pared to maintain and to prove all that Ihave advanced,-and more, should more benecessary. I have the honour to be, Sir,your obedient servant,

AN OLD UNIVERSITY-MAN.September 6, 1836.

DR. SIGMOND AND DR. GOLDING.

G. G. SIGMOND, M.D.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR:—On my return to town I had ac

opportunity of perusing the last number oiyour periodical, which contains an outlineof an address circulated amongst theGovernors of the Charing-cross Hospital, byMr. Pettigrew, in consequence of the extra-ordinary proceedings of a Committee ap-pointed to enquire into the state of thehospital. That Committee, usurping thepower of the Governors, has thought fit todispense with my services as physician tothe hospital, and as Mr. Pettigrew has morethan once mentioned my name in the courseof his observations, I have to request thatyou will in a future number do me the kind-ness to insert an address, which I will takethe earliest moment to forward to you.That I have supported Mr. Pettigrew

throughout a most arduous and difncuK

task, is a subject of self-congratulation, nordo I in the slightest degree regret that I amno longer to associate with individualswhose conduct I have had occasion most

severely to censure before that Committee,and with whom I declared I could hold nocommunication whatever.Mr. Pettigrew has explained to you the

nature of a transaction between himself andMr. Howship, of which I had, two yearsbefore, accidentally heard, but which wasthen positively denied. It appears that thistransaction was thoroughly known to Dr.Golding, to Dr. Shearman, and to Mr.Robertson, in the month of November, but itwas not communicated to me, their colleague,until the month of May, and then in con-sequence only of some dissensions that hadarisen; eveii then no open, straight-forward

course was pursued, but I saw Mr. Petti.grew assailed with provocations and un-manly persecution, which excited in mymind a more anxious desire to defend a col-league whom I had always found zealous.,active, |rand honourable. -

I can only now |state that I give my mostwilling testimony to his observations on themismanagement of the hospital, and that Ipurpose laying before you the details of myown statement, made to the Committee, onvarious points connected with the Institution.I have only now time to request that you willallow me; thus to return ;.my thanks to thedifferent members of the profession, who, inconsequence of that which has appeared inyour pages, have done me the honour to

express, in various forms, their kind feelingtowards me ; many individuals, to whom Idid not know that my name had reached,have in the warmest manner exhibited to methe demonstration of their sense of the an-noyance to which I have been subjected, andhave volunteered to assist mv endeavours toroot out the miserable system pursued at theCharing-cross Hospital.’ I feel convinced that the medical profes-sion will acknowledge, when all the factsare laid before them, that I have never actedinconsistently with the dignity and honourof a science which I have cultivated withardour and with pleasure, because it hasintroduced me to a number of intellectualindividuals, in whose society my happiesthours are past. I have the honour to be, Sir,your obedient servant,

G. G. SiGMOND, M.D.24, Dover-street, Sep. 6, 1836.

DEFENCE OF DR. GOLDING.

To the Ediior of THE LANCET.SIR:—There is no part of your public

life that has gained you greater credit thanthe vehement and constant warfare you havewaged against those who employ appeals tothe benevolence of our countrymen as merestepping-stones to their own fortune and ag-grandisement; nor does any one disputewith you that, in numerous instances,Medical Societies are so managed, as toconduce to little else than the selfish ends oftheir promoters.But all rules have exceptions, and it is

not fair to designate the Charing-Cross Hos-pital as a " place of traffic in human misery,in disease and death," unless you had evi-dence before you, touching the particularcase-unless you had been yourself, or

sent some credible persons, to examine the

place, and the mode in which it is conducted.The terms of your censure are so metapho-rical, that I cannot precisely determine whatyou mean to imply ; but taking the mostgentle interpretation, it may be presumedyou assert, that the hospital does 7tot afford

836

any material relief to the sick poor, or that it man to be men of 11 convenient memories"-does not afford so much as it might be made to giving all credit to the sensitive Moffat anddo by a different administration. to Swemmer-granting that the want of

If you say anything, you say this; but,.I bandages (fiannel, 18-tailed and compli-assure you, you cannot sustain it by an ap- cated), of an operating table, a pulley, andpeal to evidence. 1st. The hospital is a a bolt, are serious grievances, how cameclean, well-ventilated building, having wider Mr. Pettigrew to associate with such basewards than any other hospital in London; it colleagues for 14 years, and how came he tois furnished with excellent beds and bed- submit to the want of what he thinks neces-

ding, and the diet is unexceptionable. sary to his patients ? Should he not haveThat alone is enough to ensure much mate- exposed the inhumanity of the Director be-rial relief, but the efficacy of the medical fore; should he not instantly have appliedand surgical treatment is secured by the for what was right for his patients, and, innurses being carefully selected and con- case of a refusal, resigned indignantly, norstantly subjected to the visits, night and waited until he was turned out before heday, of the director; and (previous to the made public disclosures? The hospital mayrecent quarrels) by a full record being kept be an infamous Job, " but the Job has cutof all the cases, their treatment and termina- Mr. Pettigrew, not he the Job." He clungtion-which book is open to the inspection to it with long and ardent attachment.of any one-the attendance of the physi- The force of this recoil of Mr. Pettigrew’scians and surgeons has been frequent, accusations on himself is increased by theregular, and punctual. Now, throw away fact that he did not merely tolerate his col.your. suspicions as to the motives that leagues. He lauded the man of revoltingactuated the formation and continuance of manners to the skies in the dedication to athe hospital, and your opinions as to the pamphlet on Hydrophobia. Mr. P. "eagerlymerits and demerits of the medical men. embraces the opportunity afforded by thatCan you deny that good diet, lodging, and publication, 11 two record the regard andregular attendance, are not boons to the dis- esteem he entertains for Dr. Golding person-eased ? ally, and his admiration of his principles

Let us next enquire whether more good and zeal," and talks of " his unwearied ex-might be effected by a different adminis- ertions " and 11 philanthropic labours."tration. I will not say that a better medical Further, Mr. Pettigrew was one who sub-appointment might not have been made, scribed, last autumn, to have a bust of thebecause, of course, the concours would have doctor placed in the hospital, which wasensured the services of more brilliant erected with the usual eulogia by all histalents, but, taking matters as they are, I colleagues.believe I may refer you to the book just But the vindication of Dr. Golding andmentioned, to shew that the Charing-Cross his hospital would not be complete byHospital practice has not been inferior in merely proving that his accuser has toler-sanative effects to that of contemporary es- ated his faults, or participated in them.tablishments ; and the arrangements of its I wish to show that he deserves no blame.

pecuniary affairs has been the astonishment 1st. As to his measures, so far from theirof every one who has glanced at them. beng revolting, I have always consideredWithout entering into minor details, reckon them remarkably quiet and gentlemanly.the money collected, deduct the current ex- He pretends to no effect, he certainlyaffeetspences of even the smallest dispensary in no particular kindness and softness to pa-London, and look at the building. The hos- tients, nor makes any meretricious attemptspital had numerous enemies, but I never to appear profound. But he has a manly,heard any one deny that the most judicious direct, easy method of conversation, not un.economy had been used throughout, and that seasoned with humour, and not the lessthis -had been introduced in consequence of agreeable, because he displays no inclina-the Governors adopting very generally the tion to shine. This, it is true, is a matter ofplans and suggestions of Dr. Golding. taste ; but I may confidently appeal to theA different inference might be formed many members of our profession who have

from the statements of your correspondent, visited the hospital, and conferred with theMr. Pettigrew; but, without controverting doctor, which of the two opinions is mosthis assertions, I think it will be easy to correct.them that he has very trivial grounds for his 2ndly. As to Dr. Golding’s opposition tovery serious attack. The force of his the union with King’s College, it may beaffirmations is blunted to impotence by the urged that a signal want of success has at-circumstance that, allowing all he says to be tended this institution in comparison withunexaggerated, every assertion tells, with its rival-that much public advantage isequal force, to criminate himself, to injure derived from multiplying schools as far asthat character which he prizes dearer than possible, in order to ensure competition-life. For allowing Dr. Golding to be that his attempts to found an hospital, in"cruel," « tyrannous," and "revolting in which the welfare of the patients was morehis manners "-allowing him and Dr. Shear- subsidiary to the instruction of pupils, must

837

have been frustrated by a connection wherethe school was the manifest object; andthat he had the recorded opinion of Mr.Pettigrew, (given though before the goldenvision of making ;f500 by the surgical prac-tice, and saving the school from sinking, byhis anatomical lectures, was dissolved,)that such an union was inexpedient. Nowthese were sufficient reasons to make thedirector decline the " vast accession of

strength," " the considerable increase offunds, the connection of the highest respec-tability, and the deserved professional emo-lument," which Mr. Pettigrew1 after failinghimself to form a school, so confidentlyanticipates.

3rdly. Any one who knows any thingabout an hospital, knows that you can

always find a few dissatisfied patients, somepupils who love (as is natural to youth) anopportunity of finding fault with their su-periors, and making a party; and nurseswho are delighted with abusing those whokeep them in order. But Mr. Pettigrew’scases are strangely selected. Moffat is a

curious exception to human nature, if,merely because he had received a hint togo out, and that after Mr. P. had told himnot to mind such hints, he rushed forth froma comfortable bed to wander in the streetstill three in the morning, without a sixpence ;and the circumstance, that the German whowrites such good English forgets his ownname (for this is Schwemmer, not Swemmer),might have excited a suspicion in Mr. P.’smind that some enemy to the director haddictated the letter.

4thly. The details of economy alwaysappear petty and mean ; yet every man isaware that great accumulations are madeby minor savings. The shilling deposit onthe crutch will seem to the public foolishparsimony; but those acquainted with thehabits of the poor, are aware how oftencrutches, splints, &c., being taken away arenot returned, and that they amount in theend to something considerable ; nor can theinstance of individual hardship affect thegeneral expediency of the rule. In otherthings of the same nature I think that allthe medical profession, to which Mr. Petti-grew appeals, will confirm the decision ofthe committee that his charges are frivolous.Operations are not so numerous as to pre.clude the surgeon from using his own in-struments (which, in fact, is the rule of thehospital), an operating table cannot be veryessential, since private operations are per-formed on any table; and, in fact, the thingis a form. The occasional want of a bandagealso may have occurred, but such complaintsare trivial if made of themselves. If theyare brought forward as extreme cases,showing general deficiency in the materialof the hospital, they are worthy of attention.But while the general appearance of thehospital patients, and their attendants, is

such-as I have seen, and such as any onemay see who chooses to go there, (and, letit be remembered, the wards have alwaysbeen open to inspection,) the appointmentof a cook who has attempted suicide, or ofa nurse who has had a fit, can never bethought grounds of serious censure againstthe director.The word « director" brings me to the

conclusion of my observations. It may in

your ears have a bad sound. But he is

only a director to do temporarily what isafterwards to be continued or altered bythe governors, who have sufliciently fre-q uent meetings, and he is strictly responsible.Now, those who know how slowly andfeebly committees act, how much of in-justice they perpetrate collectively, whichthey would not do individually, and howcertainly one persevering man (a treasureror a secretary) can manage the rest, willagree with me that one individual, on whomrests an entire responsibility, and on whoseactions all eyes rest, is a most useful officer,and one from whom less.jobbing is to be

expected than from any clique. The successof the Charing-Cross Hospital is a- proof ofthis opinion.One word more. The committee, it is

said, are personal friends of Dr. Golding.Be it so. Men engaged in any work ofcharity are liable to become friends, but ofthis committee some must also be friends ofMr. Pettigrew, since at their hands hereceived his appointment.

I have thought proper to parry an attackmade against a man I esteem, and an insti-tution I approve, but I have no wish .tothrust again. The industry of Mr. Pettigrew,and his anxiety for distinction, I shallalways admire. I am, Sir, your obedientservant,

GREVILLE JONES.Bolt-court, Sept. 5, 1836.

GREVILLE JONES.

CORRECTION OF

ERRORS IN STATISTICS

AT THE

BRITISH ASSOCIATION.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SiR :-At the late meeting of the British

Association, there were made some remarkson-the Statistics of Mortality in Britain,wh’ch are not supported by the facts ad-duced. You have at different times doneme the favour to insert in THE LANCET, theconclusions which I have drawn from thesame facts; and I trust that you will nowallow me the opportunity of defending myconclusions, by explaining the nature of theerrors contained in the opposing statements.