The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-03-19 00:00:00

9d. per yard, and some as low as 7d.! And when
we find tenders made to the Corporation of 16s.
per yard up Wallasey Pool, we naturally ask what
is the value of land at each extremity of Liverpool ;
and we are assured by competent judges that, on
an average, land both at the north and south ends
of this town can be purchased at far less prices than
has been given for mere swamp at Wallasey. It Is
true that the Birkenhead Commissioners are desi-
rous of taking in the expanse of Wallasey Pool ;
but here arises a serious question to the public.
Will the Commissioners of Woods and Forests be
justified in permitting the property of the Crown
to be taken possession of, to benefit the owners of
land along its margin, when no public necessity can
be shown for such a sacrifice ? This estuary has
been valued by Mr. Hartley, no incompetent judge,
at £400,000; and it is perfectly clear, that if the
trustees of our docks are obliged to pay to the
Corporation for every inch of land on this side
which they require for dock purposes, and that too
the full value of the land, it is only just that the
Commissioners of Birkenhead should pay to the
Crown the full value of Wallasey Pool, because
both the Crown and the Corporation stand in the
position of trustees for the public welfare, and nei-
ther of them can make gifts unless justified by ne-
cessities, which, in this case, have neither founda-
tion nor existence. There is one point here which
must not be overlooked. It may be said that if the
estuary of the Pool is conceded by the Crown, an
outer basin may be formed, and no rate be charged
for vessels entering it. But this is fallacious. It
is the water space alone that can render the land
available ; and the landowners will lay the value of
the water space on the land itself, inasmuch as it
i will be rendered the more valuable by the accom-
modation ; and as the public will have to pay the
increased value, it is clear that the public cannot
and will not be benefitted by the concession. If
this be not the case, would any sane man give 16s.
and in some cases 255. to 355. per yard for land
which does not produce one farthing of revenue ?
If, then, the Woods and Forests give up the estuary
of Wallasey Pool without receiving from those who
want it its full value, they will be guilty of a neglect
of their public duty, and will be acting most un-
justly, not only to the public but to the bondholders
of both the Corporation and the Dock Estate, who
have lent two millions and a half of money on the
credit of these two great trusts. Let it be remem-
bered, too, that a gift from the Crown in such a
case is a dangerous precedent; and if the Woods
and Forests are so elated at the prosperous state of
the public exchequer that they can afford to give
away £400,000 at one fell swoop, their liberality
will soon be tested from other quarters which they
do not now anticipate.
If any man of common sense will go and examine
the Tranmere Pool, he will find at a glance that it
is a much more suitable place for a Cheshire dock
(if one be needed) than Wallasey Pool is. At Tran-
mere there needs no river wall of a mile long. There
a dock is half formed by nature : it would be well
sheltered, possess a good entrance, and the whole
of the ground is solid. Wallasey Pool, on the con-
trary, is open and unsheltered. And if a dock was
constructed at Tranmere, to remove to which the
unemployed ships of Liverpool, where they might
lie in security, it is all that is needed; and the
valuable anchorage ground for small craft between
Seacombe and Woodside would remain undisturbed.
Much as we admire a bold and spirited undertaking,
we like to see united with it judgment and discrimi-
nation ; and when it is recollected that the trustees
of the Liverpool docks are about to increase their
dock space by an outlay of £1,100,000, and that all
the carrying trade ie immediately and conveniently
connected with them, and that all these establish-
ments are in full operation; and when, in addition,
the price of land at Birkenhead is absolutely greater
than it is on the Liverpool side, we fear that our
neighbours, with all their dexterity, are blowing
bubbles which must burst with the first whiff of
wind that assails them. They are opposing the bill
of the dock trustees, it seems ! Surely Parliament
will laugh at such opposition. When they can show
that there is an absolute necessity for Cheshire docks
—that they have the money paid up to construct
them—that they are able and willing to pay to the
Crown the value of Wallasey Pool—and that they
can dock ships at a less cost than in Liverpool—
then let them oppose the Dock Bill with some hope
of success.

We admit that the Birkenhead Commissioners
have displayed much dexterity throughout, and they
have a right to get the best price they can for their
land ; and if they can only succeed in persuading
the Woods and Forests to act with becoming gene-
rosity, and plethoric capitalists who do not like the
trouble of deep thinking to lend some hundreds of
thousands on the security of Birkenhead Commis-
sioners' bonds, why—the docks may be made ; but
whether they will be filled or not, is another ques-
tion. The Woods and Forests have shrewd and
clever men to deal with, and a short time will show
us whether they are alive to the real and valuable
interest which the Crown possesses at Birkenhead.

We referred briefly in our last to the case of Mr.
Nightingall, the house-surgeon to the workhouse ;
and we now propose, according to our promise, to
enter more fully into the details and the evidence
offered at the enquiry before the Assistant Poor-
law Commissioner, along with a review of some cir-
cumstances which have since come to our own
knowledge. In performing this duty—and the fur-
therance of truth and justice is a sacred duty—we
shall endeavour to be strictly impartial, and to re-
strain as much as we can the utterance of the feel-
ings of reprobation with which we cannot avoid re-
garding the conduct of some of the parties con-
cerned in this affair.

The charges brought against Mr. Nightingall,
into which the Assistant Commissioner summoned
the vestry to enquire, were instituted by the Gover-
nor, Mr. Evans, and were the following. The first
referred to three children whom the Governor had
sent down from Low-hill Workhouse, as affected
with itch, to be treated by Mr. Nightingall in the
itch ward at Brownlow-hill. The latter gentleman,
on learning this fact, immediately remonstrated with
the Governor for what he deemed an uncalled-for
interference with his duties. Mr. Evans, upon this,
submitted the children to the inspection of Dr.
Macrorie and Mr. Ratcliffe, the former of whom
gave a certificate that he considered them " bad cases
of itch, and that they ought immediately to be se-
parated from the healthy inmates, and put under
treatment for the contagious affection."
Such is the case as stated by the Governor at the
investigation. It is carried, however, a little fur-
ther by the evidence. We find it admitted that the
children in question were seen by Mr.
on the morning of the day on which the Governor
sent them from Low-hill to the itch ward. Mr.
Nightingali had not thought them decided cases of
itch ; and we learn, although that fact is not in evi-
dence, that his attention was particularly called to
their case. The Governor, however, it appears,
imagined that he knew what was and what was not
itch, better than a surgeon who has had above
twenty years' Lf extensive itch practice ; and, in the
first instance, without consulting the proper medical

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARIi.

authority, or sheaving a disposition to see him—for
he says that he not only " did not then see Mr.
Nightingall, but he did not even enquire for him"—
he decided the question, and laid the foundation for
a charge against that gentleman of neglect of, or in-
capacity for the discharge of, his duties.
The gravamen, however, of the charge is, we sup-
pose, that Mr. Nightingall, on finding these children
in the itch ward, subjected to the contagion of that
ward, and not satisfied that they were affected with
the disease, sent them back again to Low-hill. We
may here remark upon the fact that there is no in-
termediate ward at either Low-hill or Brownlow-
bill for doubtful cases. Mr. Nightingall considered
these to be very doubtful cases. Dr. Macrorie ad-
mitted that the appearances of eruption in one of
the cases might be less marked in the morning,
when Mr. Nightingall saw them, than in six or
eight hours after, when he himself saw them ; and
that that case might even have escaped notice. Yet,
in defiance of the opinion of the House-Surgeon
(and he had not then had the opinion of Dr.
Macrorie) the Governor again sent for the children
to Brownlow-hill, and they were again, on the cer-
tificate of Dr. Macrorie, placed in the itch ward.
Had the case stopped here, we submit that the
conduct of the Governor must have been considered
throughout as marked with extreme impropriety.
In the first instance, he assumed the possession of
a greater knowledge of a disorder, which medical
men do not always find easy of detection in its inci-
pient stages, than a surgeon of twenty years' exten-
sive practice in such cases; and acted, insultingly
to Mr, Nightingall, upon that assumption. In the
second place, he set the opinion of a young practi-
tioner, Mr. Ratcliffe, against that of his senior, Mr.
Nightingail, and acted upon it by sending again for
the children, returned by the former as not decidedly
affected. The opinion of the nurse of the ward, a
woman of six or seven years' experience, might
have been ascertained, had he chosen to ask such
opinion—and we are not aware that he had it not—
that the children were not itch patients. Clearly,
therefore, the Governor was acting in contempt of
medical authority up to the time of his procuring
the certificate of Dr. Macrorie. And even subse-
quently to the receipt of that certificate, there was no
ground for imputation against Mr. Nightingall, be-
yond the fact that he appeared disposed to doubt
the infallibility of the Governor in medical cases, and
to resent his dictatorial interference with the medical
office. Doctors differed. They have differed before
now, and will differ again ; and the opinion of a
man of Mr. Nightingall's long experience was cer-
tainly worthy of being treated with deference.

And what has been the solution of this difference
of doctors ? Why, that after all, the opinion of Mr.
Nightingall has every appearance of having been
correct, as was shown by the fact of the children
having been discharged from the itch ward on Mon-
day last. Yes, although the Honorary Medical Board
in the first instance censured Mr. Nightingall for
his treatment of these cases —although an assistant
poor law commissioner has rebuked him, or at all
events given evidence of an opinion that he was liable
to censure, the subjects of the charge have all been
since dismissed from the itch ward, as not, in Mr.
Nightingall's opinion, being affected, either then or
at any time, with that disease !
The second charge is one of ill treatment of a boy
named Freeman, who was alleged to have been dis-
charged by Mr. Nightingall from a ward which is
called the Boys' Sick Nursery, whilst labouring
under "a severe apthous affection of the mouth
and throat." This ward, we may explain, is set
apart for children affected with slight disorders
which are considered more as subjects for the nurse
than the doctor, and le therefore only visited by the
surgeon at intervals, or when his presence is required
by the nurse. On returning to his school duties he
complained of sore mouth, and was reported by the
schoolmaster as unfit for school attendance, and he
was ordered by Mr. Nightingall to attend him every
second day at the surgery. He had previously been
treated by Mr. Woods. Here, again, there is a differ-
ence of doctors. The Honorary Medical Board, before
whom the boy was brought ten days after he was
discharged by Mr. Nightingall, reported their opinion
that such a case " ought not to be exposed to the
open air, but ought to be treated in a warm room,"
and censured Mr. Nightingall for the course which
he pursued; but, with a strange regardlessness of
consistency, accompany this censure with a declara-
tion, from the mouth of their witness, Dr. Macrorie,
that "he could not say but that the boy was cured
when discharged !" And with respect to the proper
treatment of such a case, which the board say should
not be exposed to the open air, Dr. Gill, an eminent
authority, has declared that "he would adopt the
same treatment employed by Mr. Nightingall in his
own private practice."
But with respect to the real facts of this case—
what are they ? The medical board (at least such
appears the plain inference from the evidence) assume
that Freeman was in a dangerous state when dis-
charged—ten days before they saw him—and upon
that assumption censure Mr. Nightingall. The
nurse of the ward declared before the Poor Law
Commissioner that "he seemed well ; he ate his
meat heartily, and played about the yard with the
other boys. His mouth seemed much the same
when he was discharged as when admitted, and he
did not complain about it." _ _

Trumpery charges surely these are to call for the
presence of a Poor-law Commissioner, and a special
meeting of the vestry;—paltry matters on account
of which to subject a gentleman, who has laboured
for twenty years in the service of his parish, to the
too probable fate of being dismissed from his office,
and thrown upon the world with the blight of that
dismissal upon his name ! Would, however, that
this was the worst feature of the case ! 'Would
that we could believe that the treatment of Mr.
Nightingall was just or kindly ! Mr. Nightingall
was known to have a sentence of dismissal hanging
over his head, ready to be visited upon him on the
first proof of neglect proved against him. Mr.
Galloway and others were directed by the Go-
vernor, under a threat, to " report to him
the cases of boys who were sick, which Mr.
Nightingall knew of and did not attend to ;"
and the case of the boy Freeman was thus
reported. And then a case having been got up,
the Medical Board, his professional brethren,—what
was their conduct towards this persecuted gentle-
man ? Did they afford him the opportunity of con-
fronting his accusers ? Did they say to him, as one
would imagine they would in common charity—not
to talk of courtesy—towards a professional friend,
" Mr. Nightingall, can you explain these matters ?"
They did not. As Mr. Nightingall says in his de-
fence, " the board tried, judged, and condemned
me unheard ; whereas, if they had heard my ex-
planation, they might have entirely acquitted me
of all blame." Surely this was harsh. Surely Mr.
Nightingall ought to have had the poor consolation
of being heard in his defence—a privilege granted
to the most guilty criminal that ever answered for
his guilt at the bar of his country.
For the present we have done. We leave the
facts to a just and impartial public. On a future
occasion, however, we may have some remarks to
offer upon the administration of the affairs of the work-
house, with respect both to medical and general