1

the parties. The defendant takes two grounds of defense: in the first place, he says that what he has published is true, and therefore justifiable; and he says, secondly, and this is well worthy of consideration, that even if he should fail in making out to the necessary extent the plea of justification, on the ground of the truth of the charges made, still that, looking at all the circumstances, the inferences he has drawn were such as a man might, when writing on such a subject with reasonable temper and moderation, have drawn, and that therefore, as the matter was one of public interest, concerning as it did the public health, the publication of the article was excused. Now, we will deal with each of these grounds of defense distinctly, and in their order. First, as to the question whether the defendant has established his plea of justification; in other words, whether the charges made in this article were substantially true. Here we must consider, in the first place, what is the real nature of the charge. The substance of the charge against the plaintiff seems to be this:-That he, dealing with one of the most fatal diseases known to mankind, with the intention of obtaining profit and emolument for himself, began by exciting unduly and wantonly the fears of those to whom his publications were addressed, and that he held out to them delusive hopes of recovery from the adoption of a particular remedy, with the view of inducing them to have recourse to it under his auspices, and thus put money into his own pocket. If this charge be true, one can scarcely conceive any thing worse. If it be true that the plaintiff has willfully put forward these false pretenses in order to delude patients and thus to make them, if not in person at all events in purse, his victims, then, strong as the language of the article undoubtedly is, it is not one whit too strong, for the man who could so act is an "" impostor," and an impostor of the worst and very vilest character, and to designate him as a scoundrel and impostor, strong as the language undoubtedly is, can not be considered as at all an extreme way of describing such conduct. But, on the other hand, it is obvious that the more serious such conduct would be the more grievous would be the libel, if it should turn out to be unjustifiable and inexcusable. Now, let us see whether it is or not. Before doing so, however, it is necessary, in consequence of what has taken place, to call attention to other parts of the article which, it is insisted, give to the passages declared on the sense of reiterating the criminal charge. The passages forming the context of those declared upon were the following:

"There is no need of the revelations of a police-court to show that the inhaling process means a process for working upon the fears of the

ignorant, and for obtaining enormous fees. Men like these advertisers know well that there is one class of society which is specially open to their allurements, and at the same time supplies abundant dupes in such circumstances as to make them quite worth the expense of entrapping. Ladies and gentlemen, and the more wealthy and comfortable class of tradesmen, have, as a rule, their regular family doctors. They dislike doctors' bills as much as any other bills, and it is sometimes hard enough to pay them. But still, until we go further down in the social scale, every man has his own doctor. Then comes an immensely numerous class, whose real education is not much above that of the actual poor, and whose experience of life is confined to a narrow range. These are the men and women who are the destined victims of the advertising doctors. They read about mucous membranes, carbonaceous blood, and tubercular deposits, and are impressed with the genius of the gentleman who can thus easily make them familiar with the profoundest secrets of science. If they have any thing really the matter with them, their disagreeable sensations are at once intensified; if they have nothing more than a cold in the head or a tightness in the chest, produced by over-indulgence at supper, Dr. Hunter's catalogue of terrific symptoms suggests a mysterious signification to their pains. And when at last the advertisement recommends them to 'put their worldly affairs in order, and withdraw their minds from all earthly ties,' for they have only a few short months of life' before them-i. e., unless they consult Dr. Hunter, what else remains but to go the next morning to see the pious, learned, and benevolent physician, residing in that highly respectable part of London, Upper Seymour-street, Portman-square? For he is a real physician, they see, being entitled to call himself M.D., not knowing in their simplicity how degrees are, or were, sold, or rather given away, in Scotland, and how agents still advertise in London that they can get anybody any sort of degree in Germany. Once in the toils of the physician's 'consulting room' the rest is clear. A man must be a sorry practitioner, indeed, if he can not work upon the terrors of a foolish woman, especially if she is really ill, and so keep up the game of questioning, and examining, and physicking, until the poor victim's purse will bleed no more. Howsoever considered, the Merrick-Hunter story is a fresh illustration of the utterly unsatisfactory state of the law in the matter of these abominable advertisements. The sufferance of these lures for the unwary is a thing that ought not to be longer endured. It is obviously most dangerous for persons who know nothing of medicine or physiology to habituate themselves to the study of medical books even

of the purely professional kind. As it is, a knowledge of the human frame, of the laws of health, and the symptoms of common disease is no part of a gentleman's or a lady's education. The ignorance of welleducated men and women in matters which it is of the utmost practical moment that they should understand is often amazing. Consequently, they frighten themselves out of their senses when chance puts in their way such publications, for instance, as Dr. Forbes Winslow's book on mental diseases. Symptoms which prove nothing but the existence of over-fatigue of the nervous system, and which call only for less work, more air, and quiet amusement, and, perhaps, an extra glass or two of good wine, are mistaken for indications of actual brain disease, and thus tend to produce the effect which has been mistaken for their cause. If such is the case with cultivated minds and recognized medical treatises, what must be the effect of these advertised abominations on the ignorant, the silly, and the vulgar?" Now, it is said, that taking the whole of the article together the passages declared upon by their reference to the "police court," convey the imputation against the plaintiff that he was guilty of the charge made by Mrs. Merrick, or that he was guilty of malpractice in his profession. Now, undoubtedly, if the passages declared on are calculated to convey those imputations, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict as far as regards those parts of the libel, for no evidence has been given against him either upon the charge of Mrs. Merrick or upon the charge of malpractice. If, therefore, you think that the libel conveys those imputations, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict. But if, taking the whole of it, you think that there was merely a reference to the case at the police court with the view of making, not the charge itself, but the fact that it was preferred the occasion of introducing comments on the course of advertising pursued by the plaintiff, then it would be otherwise. The main question, at all events, does not turn on this matter. It may enable the plaintiff to get a verdict; but I can hardly suppose that if these two passages had stood alone this action would have been brought. The main question is this-Is Dr. Hunter's system one which he has propounded to the public as an honest medical writer or practitioner, for the purpose of enlightening the profession or benefiting the public? Or is it a system of quackery, delusion, and dishonesty, put forward-no matter at what cost to the victims of his delusion-for the purpose of putting money into his own pocket? Now, upon this question very much must necessarily depend upon the character of the plaintiff's books, and let me see in what shape I can best put before you its substance and its spirit, so as to do justice to the system it propounds. The plaintiff

comes forward professing to understand what others have not yet understood the true nature of consumption; and professing also to have discovered what the medical profession had, he says, abandoned— the hope of curing a disease which they regarded as incurable; professing to have discovered a means whereby in its incipient stage it may be at once arrested, and in its more advanced stage mitigated and subdued. And by way of introducing his treatment, and showing that it must be efficacious, he enters into what he considers the causes of consumption. He says that, although it has been the fashion to teach that consumption is the consequence of hereditary taint, such is an utter fallacy, and the true and only cause of it is imperfect respiration, arising from the accumulation of carbonaceous matter in the blood, and thence in the lungs. In a word, that tubercle is carbon, and carbon substantially the cause of tubercle. Thus he arrives at the conclusion that there must, be an artificial inhalation of oxygen to disperse the carbon. The medical profession, he represents, know nothing of all this, and treat phthisis by remedies administered through the stomach; and that this is an entire delusion, that the remedies so given have really no effect, but that if oxygen is inhaled into the lungs by means of an inhaling process, the carbonaceous matter is got rid of and dispersed. Now, if all this were true, there could hardly be a greater discovery. But we are told upon high scientific authority that all this is purely delusive; that it is not true that imperfect respiration is the cause of consumption, and that this, which is the foundation of his whole system, entirely fails; that he is deluding people when he says that imperfect respiration alone is the cause of consumption, and that there must be an hereditary taint, or some constitutional cause of that scrofulous habit in the body in which consumption has its source. They say, moreover, that he is deluding himself, or the public, when he says that tubercle is carbon; and that even if it were so, the manner in which he proposes to get rid of it is equally delusive, so that his whole system is an entire delusion. But it does not stop there. They say that even assuming that the plaintiff was right in his idea that the disease is carbon and the cure oxygen, when he comes to the practical application of his system it is as fallacious as its theory; that when he speaks of inhaling oxygenas the act of artificial inhalation is one which can only be carried on for a limited period, it can have but a very limited effect; that, if you consider the quantity of air, and therefore of oxygen, inhaled at every breath we draw, the quantity is so large that even assuming the respiratory organs in some degree to be obstructed there would still be a very large excess beyond what is absolutely necessary; and that in

comparison with this the quantity which could be artificially introduced by any process of inhalation would be so infinitesimally small that it could have no sensible or practical effect. And, according to the evidence of Dr. Odling (who dealt with the chemistry of the case), the amount of oxygen which would be taken in by inhalation would not be one per cent. of what a person would draw in by natural breathing. Therefore, they say that it is a delusion to suppose that the process would be of any practical use; and further, it is said that, even assuming that if the plaintiff could get the oxygen into the lungs in this way it would be of any use, he can not get it there; that he acknowledges that he does not give the oxygen pure as a gas, but in combination with other matters, and that this combination must be broken before the gas can be evolved so as to pass into the system; that oxygen acts only as a gas, and that, until it is separated from other substances with which it is combined, it can not enter into the lungs, so as to effect its object. He proposes to use chloric acid. Either it is used alone or in combination with other substances. If alone, then it must be heated so as to give forth oxygen, and then it will be combined with chlorine, which is a powerful irritant to the lungs; or, if the acid is diluted, then the quantity of oxygen evolved will be so minute as to be useless. And if the acid is used (as the plaintiff says it is) with other substances, especially in the form of tinctures, which contain alcohol (for which oxygen has an affinity) then the oxygen will be absorbed. So that even if the plaintiff's theory were as sound as it is said to be fallacioius his practical application of it would be entirely delusive. Such is the evidence given by some of the most eminent medical men of the day, and by one of the most acute and intelligent professors of chemistry it has ever been my good fortune to listen to. And probably after hearing that evidence you would consider the success of Dr. Hunter's system, to say the least, exceedingly problematical. And if, indeed, in that system is the only hope for that large proportion of mankind who, according to him, are under the ban of this terrible disease, probably you would consider that hope to be faint indeed. (A laugh.) But it does not follow that because his theory is unfounded that therefore the article is justified. Undoubtedly, when a man puts forward such views he challenges criticism; and any one who differs from him, and deems his system delusive, ought to denounce it with unsparing severity; but he has not a right to impute motives unless there is something to justify or excuse that part of the imputation. And in order to ascertain how far the defendant is justified in impugning the plaintiff's motives in this matter, it is necessary to look more closely into the character of his